| Literature DB >> 28052004 |
Jae-Han Kim1, Sung Hyeon Lee2, Sookyung Choi2, Unyong Kim3, In Seok Yeo4, Su Hee Kim2, Myung Jin Oh3, Hantae Moon3, Jua Lee3, Seunghyup Jeong3, Min Gew Choi5, Jun Ho Lee5, Tae Sung Sohn5, Jae Moon Bae5, Sung Kim5, Yang Won Min5, Hyuk Lee5, Jun Haeng Lee5, Poong-Lyul Rhee5, Jae J Kim5, Su Jin Lee5, Seung Tae Kim5, Jeeyun Lee5, Se Hoon Park5, Joon Oh Park5, Young Suk Park5, Ho Yeong Lim5, Won Ki Kang5, Hyun Joo An3, Jung Hoe Kim4.
Abstract
Based on our previous studies, differential analysis of N-glycan expression bound on serum haptoglobin reveals the quantitative variation on gastric cancer patients. In this prospective case-control study, we explore the clinically relevant glycan markers for gastric cancer diagnosis. Serum samples were collected from patients with gastric cancer (n = 44) and healthy control (n = 44). N-glycans alteration was monitored by intact analysis of Hp using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry followed by immunoaffinity purification with the serum samples. Intensity and frequency markers were defined depending on the mass spectrometry data analysis. Multiple markers were found with high diagnostic efficacy. As intensity markers (I-marker), six markers were discovered with the AUC > 0.8. The high efficiency markers exhibited AUC of 0.93 with a specificity of 86% when the sensitivity was set to 95%. We additionally established frequency marker (f-marker) panels based on the tendency of high N-glycan expression. The AUC to conclude patients and control group were 0.82 and 0.79, respectively. This study suggested that N-glycan variation of serum haptoglobin were associated with patients with gastric cancer and might be a promising marker for the cancer screening.Entities:
Keywords: N-glycan; biomarker; glycoprotein; haptoglobin; stomach neoplasm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28052004 PMCID: PMC5355249 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinical characteristics of study participants
| Control ( | Gastric cancer ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | ||
| Median | 48 | 55 |
| Range | 28 to 65 | 41 to 70 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 11 | 28 |
| Female | 33 | 16 |
| Tumor stage | ||
| 1–3 | 3 | |
| 4 | 41 |
Figure 1Mass spectrum obtained from the direct analysis of haptoglobin
(A) Raw mass spectrum with multiply charged haptoglobin glycoforms., (B) Deconvoluted spectrum of haptoglobin glycoforms from healthy control (n = 44, upper) and gastric cancer patient group (n = 44, lower). Specta in each groups were overlaid.
Figure 2A set of glycan correlation observed in the mass spectrometric analysis of human haptoglobin
Glycan correlation was displayed on the mass spectrum (A), and illustrated as schematic diagram (B). Symbols in Figure 2(A) were ●, hexose; ◼, N-acetylhexosamine; ▲, fucose; and ◆, N-acetylneuraminic acid. Number in parenthesis on Figure 2(B), are the number of carbohydrate units attached on the molecule X (m/z 35791.10). Number and type of units were calculated from the accurate mass and indicates hexose, N-acetylhexsamine, fucose and N-acetylneuraminic acid from left to right, respectively.
Average CV of peak intensities obtained seven independent analysis of haptoglobin isolated from commercial human sera
| Frequency of peak | Average CV |
|---|---|
| 100~80% | 18.4% |
| 80~60% | 15.9% |
| 60~40% | 15.0% |
Figure 3Pearson's correlation of mass spectrometric dataset of standard haptoglobin samples
(A) analyzed same day and (B) different days. Small graphs are log-log plot to clarify the dispersion of small values.
Clinical efficacy of intensity markers (I-marker)
| Patient | Healthy control | AUC | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVE | ± | SD | CV | AVE | ± | SD | CV | ||||
| Marker A | 36593.422 | 3899 | ± | 1257 | 32% | 2535 | ± | 679 | 27% | 3.2.E-05 | 0.83 |
| Marker B | 36885.354 | 9615 | ± | 4027 | 42% | 5512 | ± | 1693 | 31% | 1.4.E-07 | 0.81 |
| Marker C | 37176.968 | 11483 | ± | 5601 | 49% | 5977 | ± | 1864 | 31% | 4.0.E-08 | 0.81 |
| Marker D | 37248.766 | 4293 | ± | 1358 | 32% | 2802 | ± | 733 | 26% | 3.6.E-07 | 0.84 |
| Marker E | 37541.054 | 7192 | ± | 2756 | 38% | 4048 | ± | 1227 | 30% | 6.6.E-09 | 0.83 |
| Marker F | 37978.984 | 6175 | ± | 3049 | 49% | 2585 | ± | 598 | 23% | 3.3.E-07 | 0.93 |
m/z, molecular mass; AVE, average; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation; AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 4Clinical efficacy of intensity markers (I-marker)
(A) to (F) were Box-plot of intensity marker A to marker F, (G) the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of intensity marker (F).
Clinical efficacy of frequency marker (f-marker)
| Frequency | Frequency ratio | Count | AUC | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| f(N) | f(P) | Control group | Patient group | ||||||||
| Positive | 26% | 72% | 2.8 | ||||||||
| 49% | 88% | 1.8 | |||||||||
| 23% | 63% | 2.7 | |||||||||
| 49% | 77% | 1.6 | |||||||||
| 14% | 56% | 4.0 | 2.3 | ± | 1.8 | 5.4 | ± | 2.7 | 7.81.E-09 | 0.82 | |
| 33% | 70% | 2.1 | |||||||||
| 7% | 37% | 5.3 | |||||||||
| 9% | 33% | 3.5 | |||||||||
| 16% | 47% | 2.9 | |||||||||
| Negative | 79% | 26% | 3.1 | ||||||||
| 74% | 44% | 1.7 | |||||||||
| 63% | 26% | 2.5 | |||||||||
| 40% | 7% | 5.7 | |||||||||
| 86% | 42% | 2.1 | |||||||||
| 56% | 28% | 2.0 | 7.7 | ± | 3.1 | 3.6 | ± | 3.8 | 6.31.E-07 | 0.79 | |
| 86% | 53% | 1.6 | |||||||||
| 91% | 53% | 1.7 | |||||||||
| 60% | 30% | 2.0 | |||||||||
| 60% | 23% | 2.6 | |||||||||
| 72% | 30% | 2.4 | |||||||||
f(N), frequency in control group; f(P), frequency in gastric cancer patient group; Count, numbers of f-markers in each sample; AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 5Clinical efficacy of frequency markers (f-marker)
(A) positive f-marker, (B) negative f-marker and (C) their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.