| Literature DB >> 30974861 |
Imran Khan1, Miso Nam2, Minji Kwon3, Sang-Soo Seo4, Sunhee Jung5, Ji Soo Han6, Geum-Sook Hwang7, Mi Kyung Kim8.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains one of the most prevalent cancers among females worldwide. Therefore, it is important to discover new biomarkers for early diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer, preferably non-invasive ones. In the present study, we aimed to identify unique metabolic signatures for CINs and cervical cancers using global and targeted metabolomic profiling. Plasma samples (69 normal, 55 CIN1, 42 CIN2/3, and 60 cervical cancer) were examined by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF-MS) coupled with multivariate statistical analysis. Metabolic pathways were analyzed using the integrated web-based tool MetaboAnalyst. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the combined association of metabolites and human papillomavirus (HPV) status with the risk of cervical carcinogenesis. A total of 28 metabolites exhibiting discriminating levels among normal, CIN, and cervical cancer patients (Kruskal-Wallis test p < 0.05) were identified in the global profiling analysis. The pathway analysis showed significantly altered alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolic pathways (FDR p-value < 0.05) in both the discovery and validation phases. Seven metabolites (AMP, aspartate, glutamate, hypoxanthine, lactate, proline, and pyroglutamate) were discriminated between CINs and cervical cancer versus normal (area under the curve (AUC) value > 0.8). The levels of these metabolites were significantly high in patients versus normal (p < 0.0001) and were associated with increased risk of developing CIN2/3 and cervical cancer. Additionally, elevated levels of the seven metabolites combined with positive HPV status were correlated with substantial risk of cancer progression. These results demonstrated that metabolomics profiling is capable of distinguishing CINs and cervical cancers from normal and highlighted potential biomarkers for the early detection of cervical carcinogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; cervical cancer; human papillomavirus; metabolic pathways; metabolomic analysis; plasma profiling
Year: 2019 PMID: 30974861 PMCID: PMC6521312 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11040511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
General characteristics of study subjects.
| Variables | Normal, | CIN1, | CIN2/3, | CX CAN, |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 48 (43, 51) | 35 (31, 40) | 39.5 (33, 49) | 50 (42, 51) | <0.0001 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 21.64 (20.5, 23.2) | 20.6 (19.4, 21.9) | 20.8 (19.8, 23.4) | 23.2 (20.6, 25.7) | 0.0003 | |
| HPV | Positive | 30 (43.5) | 30 (54.6) | 30 (71.4) | 47 (78.3) | 0.0002 |
| Marital status | Single | 4 (5.8) | 21 (38.2) | 7 (20) | 4 (6.67) | <0.0001 |
| Married | 59 (85.5) | 29 (52.7) | 24 (68.6) | 47 (78.3) | ||
| Divorce, bereavement | 6 (8.7) | 5 (9.1) | 4 (11.4) | 9 (15) | ||
| Education | ≤9 y | 12 (17.4) | 2 (3.6) | 6 (17.1) | 30 (50) | <0.0001 |
| 9–12 y | 24 (34.8) | 19 (34.6) | 13 (37.1) | 21 (35) | ||
| ≥12 y | 33 (47.8) | 34 (61.8) | 16 (45.7) | 9 (15.0) | ||
| Postmenopausal | Yes | 28 (40.6) | 4 (7.3) | 8 (22.9) | 34 (56.7) | <0.0001 |
| Pregnancy | No | 4 (5.8) | 21 (38.2) | 9 (25.7) | 5 (8.3) | <0.0001 |
| Yes | 65 (94.2) | 34 (61.8) | 26 (74.3) | 55 (91.7) | ||
| Oral contraceptive | Yes | 11 (15.9) | 8 (14.8) | 12 (34.3) | 9 (17.7) | 0.0949 |
| Smoking status | Yes, include past | 8 (11.8) | 18 (32.7) | 7 (20) | 7 (11.7) | 0.0097 |
Data are present as median (25%, 75%), number (%). CIN1: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: cervical cancer. a Kruskal–Wallis test in continuous variables and chi-square test in categorical data.
Figure 1Score plots of principal component analysis (PCA) from metabolite spectra of (A) positive (R2X = 0.635, and Q2 = 0.472) and (B) negative (R2X = 0.666, and Q2 = 0.399) modes of ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF-MS). Plots of the PCA analysis reveal no clear separations of the four groups, but clustered into two groups: normal/ cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1 group and CIN2 or 3/cervical cancer group. CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer.
Figure 2Metabolic pathway analysis in cervical carcinogenesis. Global pathway analysis was performed using MetaboAnalyst: (a) Normal and cervical cancer, (b) CIN1 and cervical cancer, (c) normal, CIN1, and CIN2/3, cervical cancer. ① Alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism, ②Arginine and proline metabolism, ③ Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism, ④ Pyruvate metabolism. N: Normal, CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer.
Figure 3Boxplots of metabolites between normal and cervical cancer. Post-hoc multiple comparisons using Bonfferoni method was performed for significant difference. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer.
Area under the curves (AUCs) among normal, CINs, and cervical cancers.
| Metabolite | N vs. CIN2/3 | N vs. CX CAN | CIN1 vs. CIN2/3 | CIN1 vs. CX CAN | N+CIN1 vs. CIN2/3 + CX CAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMP | 0.53 | 0.71 | <0.50 | 0.68 | 0.62 |
| Aspartate | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.74 |
| Glutamate | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| Hypoxanthine | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.74 |
| Lactate | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.71 |
| Proline | 0.68 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.54 | 0.62 |
| Pyroglutamate | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.71 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.76 |
| Aspartate,Hypoxanthine | 0.82 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| Glutamate,Hypoxanthine | 0.76 | 0.81 | 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Proline | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Pyroglutamate | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.76 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.75 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Proline | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Pyroglutamate | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Proline | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Pyroglutamate | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.77 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Proline | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.75 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Pyroglutamate | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
| Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Proline,Pyroglutamate | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.78 |
| AMP,Aspartate,Glutamate,Hypoxanthine,Lactate,Proline,Pyroglutamate | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.78 |
AMP: Adenosine monophosphate, N: Normal, CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer.
Associations of targeted metabolites with CIN2/3 and cervical cancer risk.
| Metabolite | N | CIN2/3 | N vs. CIN2/3 | CX CAN | N vs. CX CAN | CIN1 | CIN23 | CIN1 vs. CIN2/3 | CX CAN | CIN1 vs. CX CAN | N + CIN1 | CIN23 + CX CAN | N + CIN1 vs. CIN23 + CX CAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | |||||||||
| AMP | |||||||||||||
| Low | 49.3 | 38.1 | ref | 25 | ref | 40.1 | 35.7 | ref | 25 | ref | 50 | 30.4 | ref |
| High | 50.7 | 61.9 | 2.11 (0.79–5.63) | 75 | 1.52 (0.54–4.28) | 50.9 | 64.3 | 4.34 (1.29–14.6) | 75 | 0.62 (0.12–3.28) | 50 | 69.6 | 2.34 (1.13–4.83) |
| Aspartate | |||||||||||||
| Low | 50.7 | 11.9 | ref | 21.7 | ref | 49.1 | 14.3 | ref | 25 | ref | 50 | 20.6 | ref |
| High | 49.3 | 88.1 | 4.31 (1.38–13.5) | 78.3 | 1.64 (0.59–4.58) | 50.9 | 85.7 | 8.92 (2.38–33.4) | 75 | 0.81 (0.15–4.24) | 50 | 79.4 | 2.80 (1.36–5.78) |
| Glutamate | |||||||||||||
| Low | 50.7 | 11.9 | ref | 8.3 | ref | 50.9 | 28.6 | ref | 20 | ref | 50.8 | 14.7 | ref |
| High | 49.3 | 88.1 | 7.99 (2.31–27.6) | 91.7 | 6.31 (1.74–22.9) | 49.1 | 71.4 | 2.68 (0.87–8.20) | 80 | 0.60 (0.10–3.71) | 49.2 | 85.3 | 4.49 (2.05–9.82) |
| Hypoxanthine | |||||||||||||
| Low | 49.3 | 23.8 | ref | 15 | ref | 50.9 | 14.3 | ref | 8.3 | ref | 50.8 | 17.7 | ref |
| High | 50.7 | 76.2 | 5.30 (1.64–17.1) | 85 | 4.33 (1.30–14.5) | 49.1 | 85.7 | 7.90 (2.00–31.3) | 91.7 | 2.36 (0.42–13.3) | 49.2 | 32.3 | 4.26 (1.95–9.28) |
| Lactate | |||||||||||||
| Low | 50.7 | 14.3 | ref | 13.3 | ref | 50.9 | 33.3 | ref | 25 | ref | 50 | 20.6 | ref |
| High | 49.3 | 85.7 | 5.18 (1.74–15.4) | 86.7 | 3.93 (1.24–12.5) | 49.1 | 66.7 | 1.98 (0.68–5.78) | 75 | 0.96 (0.17–5.50) | 50 | 79.4 | 2.30 (1.13–4.69) |
| Proline | |||||||||||||
| Low | 50.7 | 23.8 | ref | 20 | ref | 50.9 | 54.8 | ref | 53.3 | ref | 50 | 30.4 | ref |
| High | 49.3 | 76.2 | 5.13 (1.71–15.4) | 80 | 5.23 (1.50–18.3) | 49.1 | 45.2 | 1.04 (0.35–3.09) | 46.7 | 0.69 (0.12–3.94) | 50 | 69.6 | 2.12 (1.02–4.43) |
| Pyroglutamate | |||||||||||||
| Low | 50.7 | 23.8 | ref | 10 | ref | 49.1 | 23.8 | ref | 11.7 | ref | 50.8 | 16.7 | ref |
| High | 49.3 | 76.2 | 2.94 (1.10–7.84) | 90 | 8.02 (2.13–30.3) | 50.9 | 76.2 | 5.46 (1.63–18.4) | 88.3 | 4.54 (0.65–32.0) | 49.2 | 83.3 | 4.14 (1.92–8.92) |
mOR: Multivariate odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, ref: Reference, AMP: Adenosine monophosphate, N: Normal, CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer. Adjusted for age, BMI, marital status, education, menopause status, parity, smoking status.
Combined effects of metabolites with human papillomavirus (HPV) status on CIN2/3 and cervical cancer risk.
| Metabolite | HPV | N vs. CIN2/3 | N vs. CX CAN | CIN1 vs. CIN2/3 | CIN1 vs. CX CAN | N+CIN1 vs. CIN2/3 + CX CAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | mOR (95% CI) | ||
| AMP | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 6.56 (0.99–43.2) | 5.36 (0.99–29.0) | 5.32 (0.79–35.9) | 5.31 (0.98–28.8) | 3.36 (1.02–11.1) |
| High | Neg | 1.90 (0.27–13.3) | 0.87 (0.12–6.06) | 1.82 (0.26–12.8) | 0.85 (0.12–5.94) | 1.24 (0.32–4.82) |
| High | Pos | 12.19 (2.21–67.1) | 8.54 (1.63–44.8) | 12.78 (2.31–70.7) | 8.46 (1.61–44.6) | 9.33 (2.94–29.6) |
| 0.0022 | 0.0184 | 0.0008 | 0.0184 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0.0065 | 0.0489 | 0.0034 | 0.0513 | 0.0002 | ||
| Aspartate | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 2.52 (0.31–20.5) | 3.58 (0.67–19.2) | 3.45 (0.47–25.3) | 4.67 (0.93–23.4) | 2.47 (0.73–8.34) |
| High | Neg | 1.64 (0.24–11.2) | 0.46 (0.06–3.46) | 1.74 (0.25–12.0) | 0.50 (0.07–3.76) | 1.08 (0.28–4.13) |
| High | Pos | 13.93 (2.62–74.0) | 7.71 (1.60–37.1) | 13.52 (2.55–71.7) | 6.97 (1.45–33.4) | 9.15 (2.96–28.3) |
| <0.0001 | 0.0067 | 0.0002 | 0.0236 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0.0009 | 0.041 | 0.0013 | 0.0802 | <0.0001 | ||
| Glutamate | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 0.98 (0.11–9.18) | 1.14 (0.11–12.3) | 3.62 (0.69–18.9) | 3.28 (0.60–18.0) | 2.76 (0.68–11.3) |
| High | Neg | 1.49 (0.20–11.3) | 1.33 (0.16–10.7) | 1.51 (0.21–10.6) | 0.92 (0.12–7.06) | 2.29 (0.56–9.40) |
| High | Pos | 27.18 (4.23–175) | 24.52 (3.61–167) | 17.01 (3.38–85.6) | 14.33 (2.64–77.8) | 14.85 (4.27–51.7) |
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0002 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | ||
| <0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.0006 | 0.0047 | <0.0001 | ||
| Hypoxanthine | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 7.59 (0.93–61.9) | 3.35 (0.45–24.9) | 46.45 (2.11–999) | 10.83 (0.73–161) | 2.11 (0.56–8.04) |
| High | Neg | 5.25 (0.61–45.3) | 1.82 (0.24–13.6) | 9.76 (0.70–135) | 1.27 (0.18–9.21) | 1.58 (0.42–6.05) |
| High | Pos | 21.89 (3.36–142) | 14.88 (2.57–86.2) | 33.48 (2.83–396) | 8.19 (1.44–46.6) | 11.18 (3.55–35.2) |
| 0.0005 | 0.0009 | 0.003 | 0.0076 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0.0006 | 0.0023 | 0.0024 | 0.0216 | <0.0001 | ||
| Lactate | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 2.33 (0.31–17.8) | 5.35 (0.69–41.7) | 10.40 (1.80–60.0) | 3.30 (0.71–15.4) | 4.24 (1.23–14.6) |
| High | Neg | 1.86 (0.27–12.8) | 2.79 (0.36–21.4) | 3.57 (0.50–25.3) | 0.34 (0.03–3.8) | 1.63 (0.42–6.36) |
| High | Pos | 17.99 (3.31–97.8) | 26.84 (3.69–196) | 16.54 (2.86–95.7) | 12.01 (2.35–61.3) | 9.93 (3.05–32.4) |
| <0.0001 | 0.0006 | 0.0105 | 0.0022 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0.0002 | 0.0013 | 0.0058 | 0.0139 | 0.0003 | ||
| Proline 3 | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | – | 4.16 (0.52–33.5) | 6.61 (1.53–28.6) | 4.83 (1.07–21.8) | 7.65 (1.95–29.9) |
| High | Neg | – | 2.79 (0.35–22.2) | 4.29 (0.63–29.2) | 1.38 (0.18–10.7) | 3.10 (0.73–13.2) |
| High | Pos | - | 34.22 (3.96–296) | 66.90 (8.82–507) | 22.04 (3.60–135) | 13.46 (3.51–51.7) |
| - | 0.0003 | 0.0004 | 0.0028 | <.0001 | ||
| - | 0.0009 | 0.0001 | 0.0029 | <.0001 | ||
| Pyroglutamate | ||||||
| Low | Neg | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Low | Pos | 6.76 (0.92–49.9) | 3.81 (0.39–37.7) | 6.90 (0.94–50.5) | 6.71 (0.75–60.2) | 4.23 (1.07–16.8) |
| High | Neg | 2.68 (0.34–21.0) | 4.59 (0.56–37.4) | 2.83 (0.36–22.0) | 4.76 (0.60–37.7) | 3.15 (0.77–12.9) |
| High | Pos | 15.50 (2.79–86.0) | 27.93 (4.03–194) | 15.79 (2.86–87.1) | 22.76 (3.47–149) | 16.17 (4.55–57.5) |
| 0.001 | 0.0004 | 0.001 | 0.0013 | <0.0001 | ||
| 0.0019 | 0.0005 | 0.0017 | 0.0011 | <0.0001 |
CI: Confidence interval; AMP: Adenosine monophosphate; N: Normal, CIN1: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, CIN2/3: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, CX CAN: Cervical cancer, POS: Positive; NEG: Negative. Adjusted for age, BMI, marital status, education, menopause status, parity, smoking status. 1 P is for the interaction provided by the logistic regression for multiplicative terms (a × b). 2 P is for the trend according to the order of combination provided by the logistic regression analysis. 3 The analysis of proline in N vs. CIN2/3 groups was not possible because of the small sample size.
Figure 4Schematic flow chart of metabolomic analysis in present study. UPLC-QTOF-MS: Ultra-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry; UPLC-TQ-MS: Ultra-performance lipid chromatography-triple quadruple mass spectrometry; AUC: Area under the curve; HCA: Hierarchical cluster analysis.