| Literature DB >> 31842290 |
Carolina Herrero1, Alexandre de la Fuente2, Carlos Casas-Arozamena1, Victor Sebastian3,4, Martin Prieto3,4, Manuel Arruebo3,4, Alicia Abalo1, Eva Colás5,6, Gema Moreno-Bueno6,7,8, Antonio Gil-Moreno5,6, Ana Vilar1, Juan Cueva1,6, Miguel Abal1,6, Laura Muinelo-Romay1,6.
Abstract
Tumor-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) are secreted in large amounts into biological fluids of cancer patients. The analysis of EVs cargoes has been associated with patient´s outcome and response to therapy. However, current technologies for EVs isolation are tedious and low cost-efficient for routine clinical implementation. To explore the clinical value of circulating EVs analysis we attempted a proof-of-concept in endometrial cancer (EC) with ExoGAG, an easy to use and highly efficient new technology to enrich EVs. Technical performance was first evaluated using EVs secreted by Hec1A cells. Then, the clinical value of this strategy was questioned by analyzing the levels of two well-known tissue biomarkers in EC, L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) and Annexin A2 (ANXA2), in EVs purified from plasma in a cohort of 41 EC patients and 20 healthy controls. The results demonstrated the specific content of ANXA2 in the purified EVs fraction, with an accurate sensitivity and specificity for EC diagnosis. Importantly, high ANXA2 levels in circulating EVs were associated with high risk of recurrence and non-endometrioid histology suggesting a potential value as a prognostic biomarker in EC. These results also confirmed ExoGAG technology as a robust technique for the clinical implementation of circulating EVs analyses.Entities:
Keywords: ANXA2; EVs; ExoGAG; endometrial cancer
Year: 2019 PMID: 31842290 PMCID: PMC6966595 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11122000
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Characterization of Hec1A-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) obtained by ultracentrifugation and ExoGAG. (A) Representative nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) Nanosight NS300 image of isolated EVs showing particle size (nm) and concentration (particles/mL). A similar particle profile was obtained in both methodologies (n = 4). (B) Efficiency of purified EVs, expressed as the number of EVs per frame, was similar in ExoGAG and ultracentrifugation (n = 4). (C) Protein co-precipitation levels quantified by bicinchoninic acid assay (BCA) assay showed a low co-precipitated protein in EVs isolated by ExoGAG compared to those isolated by ultracentrifugation (** p = 0.0011 according to paired t-test; n = 4). (D) Representative transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of purified EVs harvested by ultracentrifugation (left panels) and ExoGAG (right panels), further coupled to AuNP-PEG-CD9 as shown in the magnifications.
Figure 2Characterization of plasma EVs isolated by ExoGAG. (A) NTA Nanosight NS300 particle tracking profile of harvested EVs expressed in size (nm) and concentration (particles/mL) showed a population of 200 nm in average (n = 4). (B) Cytometry analysis of EVs resulted in a specific CD9 labeling of the EVs purified (n = 2). FITCA: Fluorescein isothiocyanate A.
Figure 3ANXA2 and L1CAM levels in endometrial cancer (EC) plasma samples and circulating EVs from patients and healthy controls. (A) Analysis of ANXA2 and L1CAM levels in plasma showed that ANXA2 levels mainly corresponded to purified EVs while L1CAM levels were mainly present in the soluble fraction of plasma. (B) Analysis of both markers in complete plasma samples from healthy controls and patients showed higher levels of L1CAM in controls and no significant differences for ANXA2 levels (* p = 0.027 and p = 0.090, respectively, according to Mann–Whitney U test). (C) Analysis of ANXA2 levels in circulating EVs showed significantly increased levels in patients vs. healthy controls (* p = 0.027, according to Mann–Whitney U test) while L1CAM did not show differences (p = 0.887, according to Mann–Whitney U test). These comparative analyses were conducted with 9 patients and 10 healthy controls included in the global cohort of patients and healthy controls (see Table 1).
Figure 4ANXA2 levels in EVs purified by ExoGAG as a diagnosis and prognosis marker in EC. (A) Analysis of ANXA2 levels in circulating EVs showed significantly increased levels in patients vs. healthy controls (*** p = 0.001, according to Mann–Whitney U test) (upper panel). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves confirmed the power of this biomarker to discriminate EC patients and healthy controls (lower panel). (B) ANXA2 levels according to the histology and the risk of recurrence of the EC cohort. Patients with non-endometrioid (n = 12) and high risk of recurrence tumors (n = 24) showed higher levels of ANXA2 (* p = 0.019 and * p = 0.012, respectively, according to Mann–Whitney U test). All analyses were conducted on n = 41 patients and n = 20 healthy controls.
Circulating EV-associated ANXA2 levels according to the clinical characteristics of EC patients.
| Fiture |
| ANXA2 (ng/uL) Mean (SD) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| <68 | 19 | 0.163 (0.059) | |
| ≥68 | 22 | 0.179 (0.066) | 0.23 |
|
| |||
| I/II | 32 | 0.157 (0.059) | |
| III/IV | 9 | 0.199 (0.058) |
|
|
| |||
| Endometrioid | 26 | 0.150 (0.061) | |
| Non-endmetrioid | 12 | 0.189 (0.051) |
|
|
| |||
| Grade 1–2 | 26 | 0.168 (0.063) | |
| Grade 3 | 14 | 0.191 (0.054) |
|
|
| |||
| <50 | 17 | 0.158 (0.066) | |
| ≥50 | 23 | 0.175 (0.059) | 0.385 |
|
| |||
| Low/intermediate | 17 | 0.147 (0.070) | |
| high | 24 | 0.188 (0.049) |
|
SD, standard deviation; p was calculated according to Mann–Whitney U test. p < 0.05 are marked in bold.
Clinical characteristics of the EC cohort.
| Feature | Feature | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 68 (46–88) |
| |
|
| <50% | 17 (41.5%) | |
| I | 26 (63.4%) | ≥50% | 23 (56.1%) |
| II | 6 (14.6%) | Unknown | 1 (2.4%) |
| III | 8 (19.5%) |
| |
| IV | 1 (2.5%) | Low | 11 (26.8%) |
|
| Intermediate | 6 (14.6%) | |
| Endometrioid | 26 (63.4%) | High | 24 (58.7%) |
| Non-endometrioid | 12 (29.3%) | ||
| Other | 3 (7.3%) | ||
|
| |||
| Grade 1 | 15 (36.6%) | ||
| Grade 2 | 11 (26.8%) | ||
| Grade 3 | 14 (34.1%) | ||
| Unknown | 1 (2.5%) |
FIGO, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.