| Literature DB >> 32325731 |
Ariadna Martín-Blázquez1, Cristina Jiménez-Luna2,3, Caridad Díaz1, Joaquina Martínez-Galán4, Jose Prados3,5, Francisca Vicente1, Consolación Melguizo3,5, Olga Genilloud1, José Pérez Del Palacio1, Octavio Caba3,5.
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most aggressive and lethal cancers, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. In fact, complete surgical resection remains the only curative treatment. However, fewer than 20% of patients are candidates for surgery at the time of presentation. Hence, there is a critical need to identify diagnostic biomarkers with potential clinical utility in this pathology. In this context, metabolomics could be a powerful tool to search for new robust biomarkers. Comparative metabolomic profiling was performed in serum samples from 59 unresectable PDAC patients and 60 healthy controls. Samples were analyzed by using an untargeted metabolomics workflow based on liquid chromatography, coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry in positive and negative electrospray ionization modes. Univariate and multivariate analysis allowed the identification of potential candidates that were significantly altered in PDAC patients. A panel of nine candidates yielded excellent diagnostic capacities. Pathway analysis revealed four altered pathways in our patients. This study shows the potential of liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry as a diagnostic tool for PDAC. Furthermore, it identified novel robust biomarkers with excellent diagnostic capacities.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; diagnosis; metabolomics; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; reverse-phase liquid chromatography
Year: 2020 PMID: 32325731 PMCID: PMC7225994 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12041002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Extracted peaks from reverse-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) positive and negative electrospray ionization modes (ESI+ and ESI-) high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS).
| Ionization Mode | Total | Monoisotopics | After Organic Solvent (OS) Exclusion | RSD | Evaluated in PCA | R2 | Q2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESI+ | 1150 | 365 | 145 | 84 | 84 | 0.73 | 0.61 |
| ESI- | 966 | 345 | 152 | 134 | 134 | 0.73 | 0.66 |
Marker View software provided a data matrix with the extracted peaks. This software allowed the application of different filter steps to finally detect the features responsible for the discrimination between the groups. R2 and Q2 parameters from the partial least squares-discriminant analysis were used to assess model quality. RSD: relative standard deviation; PCA: principal component analysis.
Figure 1Principal component analysis score plots reveals a close clustering of the quality control (QC) samples by ESI+ (a) and ESI- (b) modes.
Figure 2Partial least squares-discriminant analysis score plot shows a clear separation between the study groups (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in green and healthy controls (HC) in red) in ESI+ (a) and ESI- (b) modes, suggesting that it is possible to discriminate between PDAC patients and HC.
Altered pathways associated with PDAC.
| Altered Pathways |
|
|---|---|
| Linoleicacidmetabolism | 5.301 × 10−3 |
| Glycerolipidmetabolism | 5.664 × 10−3 |
| Glycerophospholipidmetabolism | 9.377 × 10−3 |
| Primarybileacidbiosynthesis | 2.190 × 10−2 |
Altered pathways obtained by Pathway Analysis using MetaboAnalyst 4.0. PDAC: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. 1 Pathways with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Selected candidate markers to create the proposed multivariate model.
| ESImode | m/z | RT (min) | PDAC/HC | AUC | Tentativeidentification | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | 646.4145 | 7.65 | 1.65 × 10−15 | ↑ | 0.959 | PS(12:0/15:1) |
| - | 446.3760 | 9.44 | 3.75 × 10−14 | ↓ | 0.902 | TG(22:2/15:0/18:3) |
| - | 627.3741 | 3.53 | 7.46 × 10−15 | ↑ | 0.900 | 4-oxo-Retinoic acid |
| - | 369.1747 | 3.29 | 2.71 × 10−13 | ↓ | 0.878 | Androsterone sulfate |
| - | 476.2792 | 5.08 | 4.65 × 10−12 | ↓ | 0.859 | LysoPE(18:2) |
| - | 311.1396 | 2.62 | 6.27 × 10−17 | ↓ | 0.858 | Phenylalanylphenylalanine |
| + | 430.2939 | 7.58 | 7.08 × 10−10 | ↑ | 0.850 | all-trans-Decaprenyldiphosphate |
| + | 1039.6721 | 10.79 | 1.73 × 10−9 | ↓ | 0.848 | LysoPC(18:2) |
| - | 367.1583 | 3.14 | 1.79 × 10−9 | ↓ | 0.847 | Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate |
ESI: electrospray ionization; RT: retention time; FDR: false discovery rate; PDAC: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients; HC: healthy controls; AUC: area under the curve; PS: phosphatidylserine; TG: triglyceride; LysoPE: lysophosphatidylethanolamine; LysoPC: lysophosphatidylcholine. PDAC/HC ratio shows increased (↑) or decreased (↓) levels of each marker in PDAC group compared to HC and based in fold change ratio.
Figure 3ROC curve for the nine-biomarker panel; 100 cross-validations were performed, and the results were averaged to generate the plot (a). Average of predicted class probabilities for each sample in 100 cross-validations. Given that the algorithm uses a balanced subsampling approach, the classification boundary is located at the center (x = 0.5, dotted line) (b).
Baseline characteristics of all study participants.
| Characteristic | PDAC Patients | Healthy Controls |
|---|---|---|
|
| 61.18 ± 12.17 | 56.16 ± 10.03 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 32 | 31 |
| Female | 27 | 29 |
|
| 25.40 ± 3.58 | 27.17 ± 3.76 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 0 | 0 |
| No | 59 | 60 |
|
| ||
| No | 45 | 60 |
| Type I | 0 | 0 |
| Type II | 14 | 0 |
| Type IIIc | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 15 | 0 |
| No | 44 | 60 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 8 | 0 |
| No | 51 | 60 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 0 | 0 |
| No | 59 | 60 |
|
| ||
| Yes | 0 | 0 |
| No | 59 | 60 |
|
| ||
| I | 5 | - |
| II | 6 | - |
| III | 12 | - |
| IV | 36 | - |
|
| ||
| Head | 36 | - |
| Body | 15 | - |
| Tail | 8 | - |
|
| ||
| Yes | 18 | - |
| No | 41 | - |
|
| ||
| Yes | 33 | - |
| No | 26 | - |
|
| ||
| 1 | 2 | - |
| 2 | 2 | - |
| >2 | 29 | - |
|
| ||
| Hepatic | 26 | - |
| Lymph node | 11 | - |
| Lung | 7 | - |
| Osseous | 4 | - |
| Brain | 2 | - |
| Other | 15 | - |