| Literature DB >> 30873760 |
Dan Wu1, Pinglu Zhang1, Ji Ma1, Jinbo Xu1, Li Yang1, Weidan Xu1, Haifeng Que1, Meifen Chen1, Hongtao Xu1.
Abstract
Gastric cancer is a leading cause of mortality due to neoplastic disease. Although early detection of gastric cancers can decrease the mortality rate, it remains a diagnostic challenge because of the lack of effective biomarkers. In this study, fifteen gastric cancer patients and ten healthy subjects were recruited to assess novel serum biomarkers for gastric cancer using antibody microarray technology. ELISA was utilized to validate the antibody array results. As a result, compared to the controls, eleven cytokines were found to be significantly increased in gastric cancer, including interferon gamma receptor 1 (IFNGR1), neurogenic locus notch homolog protein 3 (Notch-3), tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 19L (TNFRSF19L), growth hormone receptor (GHR), signaling lymphocytic activation molecule family 8 (SLAMF8), folate receptor beta (FR-beta), integrin alpha 5, galectin-8, erythropoietin-producing hepatocellular A1 (EphA1), epiregulin, and fibroblast growth factor 12 (FGF-12) with P < 0.05. ELISA validation supported the results of the antibody array. More importantly, most of these eleven cytokines, including IFNGR1, TNFRSF19L, GHR, SLAMF8, FR-beta, and integrin alpha 5 were discovered to be elevated in gastric cancer serum samples for the first time in this study, suggesting that these proteins may serve as novel biomarkers for the early diagnosis and prognosis determination of gastric cancer.Entities:
Keywords: antibody array; biomarkers; gastric cancer; serum
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30873760 PMCID: PMC6488129 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Clinical data of patients and controls for antibody array detection
| Patient | |
| n | 15 |
| Age (mean ± SD), y | 58.67 ± 5.84 |
| Sex | 46.67% male, 53.33% female |
| Tumor location | Tunica mucosa |
| Lymphatic metastasis | no |
| Distant metastasis | no |
| Tumor diameter | <3 cm |
| Histological type | Undifferentiated |
| Stage | IA |
| Treatment | no |
| Control | |
| n | 10 |
| Age (mean ± SD), year | 58.10 ± 6.89 |
| Sex | 50% male, 50% female |
|
| 0.833 |
Clinical data of patients and controls for ELISA
| Patient | |
| n | 20 |
| Age (mean ± SD), year | 58.85 ± 4.27 |
| Sex | 50% Male, 50% Female |
| Tumor location | Tunica mucosa |
| Lymphatic metastasis | no |
| Distant metastasis | no |
| Tumor diameter | <3 cm |
| Histological type | Undifferentiated |
| Stage | IA |
| Stage | I |
| Treatment | no |
| Control | |
| n | 20 |
| Age (mean±SD), year | 60.10 ± 6.16 |
| Sex | 50% Male, 50% Female |
|
| 0.461 |
Information about the differentially expressed cytokines
| Protein name | Gene ID | GC value | HC value | Fold change (GC/HC) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFNGR1 | 3459 | 10 653.23 | 4784.44 | 2.227 | <0.0001 |
| Notch‐3 | 4854 | 83 220.05 | 52 939.13 | 1.572 | 0.0001 |
| TNFRSF19L | 84 957 | 78 969.55 | 28 658.92 | 2.755 | 0.0001 |
| GHR | 2690 | 7735.61 | 2817.25 | 2.746 | <0.0001 |
| SLAMF8 | 56 833 | 6933.58 | 3419.79 | 2.027 | 0.0022 |
| FR‐beta | 2350 | 13 787.23 | 6881.04 | 2.004 | 0.0066 |
| Integrin alpha 5 | 3678 | 9563.02 | 6160.67 | 1.552 | 0. 0027 |
| Galectin‐8 | 3964 | 19 408.19 | 11 720.99 | 1.656 | 0.0039 |
| EphA1 | 2041 | 29 531.42 | 14 891.53 | 1.983 | 0.0013 |
| Epiregulin | 2069 | 7866.67 | 5634.43 | 1.396 | 0.0091 |
| FGF‐12 | 2257 | 24 060.81 | 9952.81 | 2.417 | 0.0198 |
GC, Gastric cancer; HC, Heathy control.
Figure 1Scatter plots of differential protein levels. The levels of eleven proteins differentially expressed between gastric cancer and the control samples were detected by antibody array are shown by scatter plots with mean lines and standard deviation lines. Control group, n = 20; Gastric cancer, n = 20
Figure 2The antibody array profiles. The locations of differentially expressed proteins in the antibody array profiles are marked by blue rectangles. The levels of cytokines are shown by their fluorescence intensity which is proportional to the levels of expression
Figure 3Unsupervised‐hierarchical cluster analysis. The unsupervised‐hierarchical cluster analysis accurately distinguished gastric cancer from controls, confirming differences in the expression of the eleven proteins between gastric cancer and control. Green indicates low levels of the proteins, black for median levels, and red for high levels. GC, gastric cancer; HC, healthy control
Figure 4The ELISA results of six differentially expressed proteins. ELISA results of six differentially expressed proteins are shown by scatter plots with mean lines and standard deviation lines. The statistical analysis of these proteins between gastric cancer and control was performed by Mann‐Whitney U test analysis. Control group, n = 20; Gastric cancer, n = 20