| Literature DB >> 28378454 |
Márcia Monteiro1, Nathalie Moreira1, Joana Pinto1, Ana S Pires-Luís2,3, Rui Henrique2,3,4, Carmen Jerónimo2,4, Maria de Lourdes Bastos1, Ana M Gil5, Márcia Carvalho1,6, Paula Guedes de Pinho1.
Abstract
The analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from biological samples appears as one of the most promising approaches in metabolomics for the study of diseases, namely cancer. In fact, it offers advantages, such as non-invasiveness and robustness for high-throughput applications. The purpose of this work was to study the urinary volatile metabolic profile of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n = 30) and controls (n = 37) with the aim of identifying a potential specific urinary volatile pattern as a non-invasive strategy to detect RCC. Moreover, the effect of some confounding factors such as age, gender, smoking habits and body mass index was evaluated as well as the ability of urinary VOCs to discriminate RCC subtypes and stages. A headspace solid-phase microextraction/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based method was performed, followed by multivariate data analysis. A variable selection method was applied to reduce the impact of potential redundant and noisy chromatographic variables, and all models were validated by Monte Carlo cross-validation and permutation tests. Regarding the effect of RCC on the urine VOCs composition, a panel of 21 VOCs descriptive of RCC was defined, capable of discriminating RCC patients from controls in principal component analysis. Discriminant VOCs were further individually validated in two independent samples sets (nine RCC patients and 12 controls, seven RCC patients with diabetes mellitus type 2) by univariate statistical analysis. Two VOCs were found consistently and significantly altered between RCC and controls (2-oxopropanal and, according to identification using NIST14, 2,5,8-trimethyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene-1-ol), strongly suggesting enhanced potential as RCC biomarkers. Gender, smoking habits and body mass index showed negligible and age-only minimal effects on the urinary VOCs, compared to the deviations resultant from the disease. Moreover, in this cohort, the urinary volatilome did not show ability to discriminate RCC stages and histological subtypes. The results validated the value of urinary volatilome for the detection of RCC and advanced with the identification of potential RCC urinary biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; multivariate statistical analysis; renal cell carcinoma; urine; volatile organic compounds
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28378454 PMCID: PMC5571542 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.13132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
List of urine samples collected for controls and RCC subjects, comprising number of samples, age and gender
| Sample group | no. samples | Age range | Mean age ± S.D. | Females | Males |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls (total cohort) | 37 | 50–86 | 69.08 ± 12.04 | 27 | 10 |
| RCC (total cohort) | 30 | 35–79 | 59.95 ± 12.44 | 11 | 19 |
| Clear‐ cell (ccRCC) | 20 | 41–79 | 61.47 ± 12.24 | 5 | 15 |
| Type 1 papillary (pRCC) | 5 | 24–74 | 61.53 ± 7.34 | 3 | 2 |
| Chromophobe (chRCC) | 5 | 35–71 | 52.28 ± 16.34 | 3 | 2 |
| With metastases | 8 | 50–78 | 66.05 ± 8.62 | 1 | 7 |
| Without metastases | 22 | 35–79 | 57.73 ± 13.02 | 10 | 12 |
| Stage I | 16 | 41–79 | 58.50 ± 12.13 | 8 | 8 |
| Stage II | 3 | 42–78 | 59.99 ± 17.91 | 3 | 3 |
| Stage III | 7 | 35–76 | 61.74 ± 14.70 | 2 | 5 |
| Stage IV | 4 | 50–72 | 62.58 ± 9.20 | ‐ | 4 |
| Smokers | 9 | 35–76 | 55.20 ± 13.16 | 2 | 7 |
| Non‐smokers | 21 | 41–79 | 62.86 ± 11.00 | 10 | 11 |
| BMI ≥25 | 20 | 35–79 | 61.02 ± 11.80 | 9 | 11 |
| BMI <25 | 7 | 42–77 | 60.84 ± 14.45 | 1 | 6 |
| Controls >60 year | |||||
| Age | 12 | 50–60 | 54.75 ± 4.05 | 8 | 4 |
| Age >60 | 13 | 67–86 | 80.62 ± 5.84 | 9 | 4 |
| ccRCC | |||||
| ccRCC | 9 | 41–74 | 57.81 ± 12.56 | 1 | 8 |
| Other subtypes | 9 | 35–74 | 56.79 ± 13.68 | 5 | 4 |
For RCC patients, histopathological cancer type, TNM staging, presence or absence of metastases, smoking habits and BMI (kg.m‐2).
S.D., standard deviation.
Information not available for 1 subject.
Includes smokers (n = 4) and former smokers (n = 5).
Information not available for three subjects.
Figure 1PCA (A) and PLS‐DA before (B) and after(C) variable selection scores scatter plots obtained for the HS‐SPME/GC‐MS chromatograms of human urine samples for the unmatched cohort of controls (n = 37, ) and RCC patients (n = 30, ●). The PCA model was obtained with 2 PCs and the PLS‐DAs with 2 LVs. The ellipses indicate the 95% confidence limit of each model.
List of VOCs extracted from urine and varying in the RCC group compared to controls, characterized by their IUPAC (and common) name, RTs and quantifier ions (m/z)
| Metabolite | Quantifier ions ( | RT (min) | Identification method | % variation (± % uncertainty) | ES (±ESSE) |
| Corrected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2‐Oxopropanal (Pyruvaldehyde) | 43 + 72 | 1.67 | Std | 82.96 (11.21) | 1.43 (0.54) | 3.90 × 10−6 | 3.99 × 10−5 |
| 2‐Methylpropan‐2‐ol | 41 + 59 + 95 | 1.82 | Std | 71.44 (16.16) | 0.88 (0.50) | 1.80 × 10−3 | 3.51 × 10−3 |
| 2‐Ethoxy‐2‐methylpropane | 41 + 59 + 87 | 2.17 | MS | 100.62 (18.92) | 0.97 (0.51) | 7.45 × 10−4 | 1.78 × 10−3 |
| 2‐Methylpropan‐1‐ol (Isobutanol) | 41 + 57 | 2.23 | Std | 92.58 (28.48) | 0.62 (0.49) | 1.11 × 10−2 | 1.63 × 10−2 |
| 2‐Methylbutan‐2‐ol | 43 + 59 + 73 | 2.34 | MS | 32.15 (10.63) | 0.68 (0.50) | 1.10 × 10−2 | 1.63 × 10−2 |
| Pentane‐2‐one | 43 + 58 + 71 + 86 | 2.74 | Std | 68.54 (20.79) | 0.65 (0.49) | 8.72 × 10−3 | 1.48 × 10−2 |
| 2,2,5,5‐Tetramethyltetrahydrofuran | 43 + 95 | 3.81 | MS | 121.89 (18.10) | 1.17 (0.52) | 1.72 × 10−2 | 5.91 × 10−4 |
| 1‐Methyl‐1,4‐cyclohexadiene | 91 + 113 | 3.86 | MS | 39.74 (25.97) | 0.34 (0.49) | 2.38 × 10−1 | 2.74 × 10−1 |
| 4‐Methylheptan‐2‐one | 43 + 85 + 58 | 7.80 | MS | 85.48 (14.54) | 1.14 (0.52) | 1.95 × 10−5 | 6.03 × 10−4 |
| Phenol | 66 + 94 | 9.02 | MS | 5.02 (30.84) | 0.04 (0.48) | 9.30 × 10−1 | 9.30 × 10−1 |
| (1Z)‐1‐Propen‐1‐ylbenzene (α‐Methylstyrene) | 117 + 118 | 9.19 | MS | −92.78 (34.05) | −1.03 (0.51) | 1.84 × 10−3 | 3.51 × 10−3 |
| 2‐Pentylfuran | 81 + 138 | 9.36 | Std | 3.06 (16.27) | 0.05 (0.48) | 6.73 × 10−1 | 6.95 × 10−1 |
| 3,7,7‐Trimethylcyclohept‐3‐ene (2‐Carene) | 93 + 121 | 9.49 | MS | −49.76 (25.52) | −0.56 (0.49) | 1.92 × 10−3 | 3.51 × 10−3 |
| 2,2‐Dimethylpropionic acid butyl ester | 57 + 103 | 9.65 | MS | 73.67 (15.18) | 0.93 (0.51) | 1.47 × 10−4 | 5.71 × 10−4 |
| 6‐Methyl‐5‐hepten‐2‐ol | 70 + 95 | 9.94 | MS | 15.11 (11.08) | 0.32 (0.49) | 2.49 × 10−1 | 2.75 × 10−1 |
| 1‐Methyl‐4‐(1‐methylethenyl)‐cyclohexene (Limonene) | 67 | 10.47 | Std | −31.40 (22.20) | −0.40 (0.49) | 1.54 × 10−1 | 1.84 × 10−1 |
| 1,2,3,4‐Tetrahydro‐1,5,7‐trimethylnaphthalene | 131 + 159 + 174 | 15.85 | MS | −12.79 (17.64) | −0.19 (0.48) | 9.86 × 10−2 | 1.27 × 10−1 |
| 1‐(2‐Methylphenyl)‐2‐propen‐1‐one | 120 + 146 | 15.94 | MS | −30.65 (29.25) | −0.29 (0.48) | 2.61 × 10−1 | 2.80 × 10−1 |
| 1,1,6‐Trimethyl‐1,2‐dihydronaphthalene (TDN) | 157 + 172 | 19.76 | MS | −61.68 (17.87) | −1.07 (0.52) | 3.95 × 10−5 | 2.04 × 10−4 |
| 2‐Methoxy‐4‐prop‐2‐enylphenol (Eugenol) | 149 + 164 | 19.85 | Std | −12.49 (29.59) | −0.11 (0.48) | 1.18 × 10−1 | 1.46 × 10−1 |
| (E)‐1‐(2,3,6‐Trimethylphenyl)buta‐1,3‐diene | 157 + 172 | 21.10 | MS | −50.23 (14.49) | −1.02 (0.51) | 1.20 × 10−4 | 5.32 × 10−4 |
| 1,1,5,6‐Tetramethyl‐1,2‐dihydronaphthalene | 157 + 172 | 23.32 | MS | −54.77 (34.65) | −0.47 (0.49) | 3.68 × 10−4 | 9.51 × 10−4 |
| 2,5,8‐Trimethyl‐1,2,3,4‐tetrahydronaphthalen‐1‐ol | 157 + 172 | 25.23 | MS | −65.03 (35.54) | −0.57 (0.49) | 1.66 × 10−5 | 1.03 × 10−4 |
| [(2E,4E,6E,8E)‐3,7‐dimethyl‐9‐(2,6,6‐trimethylcyclohexen‐1‐yl)nona‐2,4,6,8‐tetraenyl] acetate (Retinol acetate) | 119 + 268 | 38.91 | MS | 11.08 (50.31) | 0.05 (0.48) | 7.03 × 10−8 | 2.18 × 10−6 |
| [(3S,8R,9S,10R,13S,14S)‐10,13‐Dimethyl‐17‐oxo‐1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16‐dodecahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren‐3‐yl] hydrogen sulphate (DHEA‐S) | 91 + 270 | 39.43 | MS | 31.95 (22.56) | 0.28 (0.48) | 1.06 × 10−6 | 1.64 × 10−5 |
| Unidentified VOCs | |||||||
| VOC1 | 41 + 59 | 1.76 | – | 30.40 (12.24) | 0.56 (0.49) | 3.47 × 10−2 | 5.00 × 10−2 |
| VOC2
| 145 + 163 | 20.86 | – | −59.08 (16.15) | −1.13 (0.52) | 5.15 × 10−6 | 3.99 × 10−5 |
| VOC3 | 89 + 116 + 151 | 24.10 | – | −21.54 (22.40) | −0.26 (0.48) | 4.99 × 10−2 | 6.73 × 10−2 |
| VOC4 | 157 + 172 | 24.15 | – | −56.99 (24.51) | −0.70 (0.50) | 9.05 × 10−3 | 1.48 × 10−2 |
| VOC5 | 157 + 172 | 24.63 | – | −70.87 (34.67) | −0.67 (0.50) | 2.62 × 10−4 | 7.38 × 10−4 |
| VOC6 | 83 + 132 | 26.85 | – | −63.54 (24.97) | −0.80 (0.50) | 1.08 × 10−3 | 2.39 × 10−3 |
The identification is proposed based on the NIST 14 (MS) and, when available, on the comparison with standards (Std). The percentage of variation (± % uncertainty), ES, ESSE, P‐values and P‐values corrected (*after BH‐FDR correction) are presented for each VOC.
May have contribution from higher mean age of controls. The significant compounds after BH‐FDR correction are highlighted in light grey.
Figure 2PCA scores scatter plot obtained for the urine of the unmatched cohort of controls () and RCC patients (●) with the 21‐metabolite panel, obtained with 2 PCs (ellipse indicates the 95% confidence level).
Figure 3Boxplots for the three VOCs found significantly altered between urine controls (n = 12) and RCC patients (n = 9) samples in the independent set and that are in accordance with the results for the untargeted analysis. (A) 2‐oxopropanal (P‐value = 1.48 × 10−2), (B) 2,2‐dimethylpropionic acid butyl, (C) 2,5,8‐trimethyl‐1,2,3,4‐tetrahydronaphthalen‐1‐ol.
List of statistically significant varying metabolites in RCC patients with DMT2 (n = 7) compared to controls (n = 37), characterized by their IUPAC (and common) name. The percentage of variation (± % uncertainty), ES, ESSE and P‐values are presented
| Metabolite | % variation (± % uncertainty) | ES (±ESSE) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 2‐Oxopropanal | 56.73 (20.10) | 1.37 (0.86) | 3.52 × 10−2 |
| 2,2,5,5‐tetramethyltetrahydrofuran | 390.67 (76.91) | 2.95 (1.02) | 6.91 × 10−5 |
| (1Z)‐1‐Propen‐1‐ylbenzene (α‐methylstyrene) | −94.41 (24.93) | −0.79 (0.83) | 4.88 × 10−2 |
| 2,5,8‐Trimethyl‐1,2,3,4‐tetrahydronaphthalen‐1‐ol | −59.01 (23.11) | −0.51 (0.82) | 8.94 × 10−3 |
| [(3S,8R,9S,10R,13S,14S)‐10,13‐Dimethyl‐17‐oxo‐1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16‐dodecahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren‐3‐yl] hydrogen sulphate (DHEA‐S) | 30.21 (25.11) | 0.21 (0.81) | 1.06 × 10−3 |
Figure 4Correlation network of VOCs signature of RCC patients compared to controls, based on Spearman's correlation coefficients (|r| ≥ 0.7 and P < 0.01). Node size denotes the effect size value of RCC patients in relation to controls, while colours indicate direction of effect size with (A) red for decrease and (B) green for increase. Only positive correlations were found according to the threshold (|r| ≥ 0.7 and P < 0.01), as indicated by dark red lines. (Identification: (1) 2‐oxopropanal; (2) 2‐methylpropan‐2‐ol; (3) 2‐ethoxy‐2‐methylpropane; (4) 2‐methylpropan‐1‐ol; (5) 2‐methylbutan‐2‐ol; (6) 2,2,5,5‐tetramethyltetrahydrofuran; (7) 4‐methylheptan‐2‐one; (8) 2,2‐dimethylpropionic acid butyl ester; (9) TDN; (10) VOC2; (11) (E)‐1‐(2,3,6‐trimethylphenyl)buta‐1,3‐diene; (12) 1,1,5,6‐tetramethyl‐1,2‐dihydronaphthalene; (13) VOC4; (14) VOC5; (15) 2,5,8‐trimethyl‐1,2,3,4‐tetrahydronaphthalen‐1‐ol.