| Literature DB >> 32967043 |
Jing Chen1, Yu-Shuai Han1, Wen-Jing Yi1, Huai Huang2, Zhi-Bin Li1, Li-Ying Shi3, Li-Liang Wei4, Yi Yu2, Ting-Ting Jiang2, Ji-Cheng Li1,2.
Abstract
Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), defined as tuberculosis (TB) resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampicin, is a major concern of TB control worldwide. However, the diagnosis of MDR-TB remains a huge challenge to its prevention and control. To identify new diagnostic methods for MDR-TB, a mass spectrometry strategy of data-independent acquisition and parallel reaction monitoring was used to detect and validate differential serum proteins. The bioinformatic analysis showed that the functions of differential serum proteins between the MDR-TB group and the drug-sensitive tuberculosis group were significantly correlated to the complement coagulation cascade, surface adhesion and extracellular matrix receptor interaction, suggesting a disorder of coagulation in TB. Here, we identified three potential candidate biomarkers such as sCD14, PGLYRP2 and FGA, and established a diagnostic model using these three candidate biomarkers with a sensitivity of 81.2%, a specificity of 90% and the area under the curve value of 0.934 in receiver operation characteristics curve to diagnose MDR-TB. Our study has paved the way for a novel method to diagnose MDR-TB and may contribute to elucidate the mechanisms underlying MDR-TB.Entities:
Keywords: FGA; PGLYRP2; biomarker; data-independent acquisition; multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; parallel reaction monitoring; sCD14
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32967043 PMCID: PMC7686995 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.15796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Age and gender characteristics of included cases
| HC | MDR‐TB | DS‐TB |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | ||||
| Age | 33.40 ± 10.59 | 39.26 ± 15.52 | 36.55 ± 14.95 | .421 |
| Sex (Male) | 20 (10) | 20 (12) | 20 (14) | .435 |
| Validation set | ||||
| Age | 36.85 ± 9.18 | 41.55 ± 12.07 | 35.55 ± 13.57 | .245 |
| Sex (Male) | 20 (12) | 20 (14) | 20 (16) | .386 |
| Total | ||||
| Age | 35.12 ± 9.94 | 40.43 ± 3.72 | 36.05 ± 14.11 | .146 |
| Sex (Male) | 40 (22) | 40 (26) | 40 (30) | .172 |
Gender was analysed by chi‐square test, and age was analysed by one‐way ANOVA.
The parameters and materials of liquid phase separation and mass spectrometry
| Data collection | DDA mode | DIA mode | PRM qualitative analysis | PRM quantitative analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trap column | EasySprayTM C18 Trap Column (Thermo Scientific, 3 μm, 75 μm*2 cm) | EasySprayTM C18 Trap Column (Thermo Scientific, 3 μm, 75 μm*2 cm) | Home‐made column (100 μm*50 mm, 5 μm‐C18) | Home‐made column (100 μm*50 mm, 5 μm‐C18) |
| Analytical column | EasySprayTM C18 LC chromatographic column (Thermo Scientific, 2 μm, 75 μm*50 cm) | EasySprayTM C18 LC chromatographic column (Thermo Scientific, 2 μm, 75 μm*50 cm) | Home‐made tip‐column (75 μm*200 mm, 3 μm‐C18) | Home‐made tip‐column (75 μm*200 mm, 3 μm‐C18) |
| Flow velocity | 250 nL/min | 250 nL/min | 300 nL/min | 5 μL/min |
| Liquid phase separation gradient | 0‐97 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 8% to 30%; 97‐110 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 30% to 100%; 110‐120 min, linear gradient of B liquid rose to 100% and was maintained. | 0‐97 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 10% to 30%; 97‐110 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 30% to 100%; 110‐120 min, the linear gradient of B liquid rose to 100% and was maintained. | 0‐2 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 5% to 10%, 2‐45 min, linear gradient of liquid B was from 10% to 30%; 45‐55 min, the linear gradient of liquid B was from 30% to 100%; 55‐60 min, the linear gradient of liquid B was maintained at 100%. | 0‐2 min, linear gradient of B liquid was from 5% to 10%, 2‐45 min, linear gradient of liquid B was from 10% to 30%; 45‐55 min, the linear gradient of liquid B was from 30% to 100%; 55‐60 min, the linear gradient of liquid B was maintained at 100%. |
| MS analysis duration | 120 min | 120 min | 60 min | 60 min |
| MS detection mode | Positive ions | Positive ions | Positive ions | Positive ions |
| MS1 parameters | ||||
| MS1 scanning range | 300‐1800 m/z | 350‐1650 m/z | 300‐1800 m/z | 300‐1800 m/z |
| Mass spectrometry resolution | 60 000 (@m/z 200) | 120 000 (@m/z 200) | 60 000 (@m/z 200) | 60 000 (@m/z 200) |
| AGC target | 3e6 | 3e6 | 3e6 | 3e6 |
| Maximum IT | 200 ms | 50 ms | 50 ms | 200 ms |
| MS2 parameters | ||||
| MS2 | 20 MS2 scans | DIA data acquisition mode, 30 windows | Targeted shotgun scanning mode, 20 MS2 scans | 20 MS2 scans |
| Isolation window | 1.6 Th | 1.6 Th | 1.6 Th | 1.6 Th |
| Mass spectrometry resolution | 30 000 (@m/z 200) | 30 000 (@m/z 200) | 15 000(@m/z 200) | 30 000 (@m/z 200) |
| AGC target | 3e6 | 3e6 | 1e5 | 3e6 |
| Maximum IT | 120 ms | auto | 50 ms | 120 ms |
| MS2 Activation Type | HCD | HCD | HCD | HCD |
| Normalized collision energy | 27 | 30 | 27 | 27 |
| Spectral data type | / | Profile | / | / |
| Software parameters | ||||
| Maxquant_1.5.3.17 | Enzyme: trypsin; max miss cleavage site: 2; fixed modification: Carbamidomethyl(C); dynamic modification: Oxidation(M) and Acetyl (Protein N‐term) | |||
| Skyline | Enzyme: trypsin/P; missed cleavage site: 0 | |||
| Spectronaut Pulsar X_12.0.20491.4 | Retention time prediction type: dynamic iRT; interference on MS2 level correction: enabled; cross run normalization: enabled | |||
Chromatographic separation was performed using HPLC system Easy nLC‐1200 (Thermo Scientific), and mass spectrometry was performed using Q‐Exactive HF (Thermo Scientific). For liquid phase separation, buffer A was 0.1% aqueous solution of formic acid, and solution B was 0.1% aqueous solution of acetonitrile and formic acid (acetonitrile of 84%). Maxquant was used of database retrieval. Skyline was used of analysis of PRM, and Spectronaut was used of DIA data processing.
Abbreviations: DDA, data‐dependent acquisition; DIA, data‐independent acquisition; PRM, parallel reaction monitoring
Figure 1Quality control and quantitative heat map of DIA. A, Average data points per peak: the average data points per peak were 7.2, which met the requirements of quantitative analysis. B, Column peak capacity statistics: the abscissa was the order of the samples, the green line was the data of all peptides, and the red one was the data of the iRT internal standard. Peak capacity represented the separation and analysis capability of the column. The average peak capacity was 471, indicating better separation and analysis. C, Chart of iRT elution time: the main iRTs were detected and the retention time was generally stable. D, Chart of principal component analysis (PCA): quality control (QC) was evaluated using the coefficient of variation CV and PCA analysis. E, Quantitative heatmap of DIA
Figure 2Differential protein clusters. A, MDR‐TB/HC. B, DS‐TB/HC. C, MDR‐TB/DS‐TB
Figure 3GO and KEGG analysis. A and B, MDR‐TB/HC. C and D, MDR‐TB/DS‐TB. E and F, DS‐TB/HC
Figure 4Relative protein abundance and ROC analysis. The ordinate was the peak area. A, Relative protein abundance of PGLYRP2. B, Relative protein abundance of FGA. C, Relative protein abundance of sCD14. D, ROC analysis of MDR‐TB/DS‐TB. E, ROC analysis of MDR‐TB/HC
Figure 5Differential proteins of MTB complex and interaction and correlation analysis. A, Fatty acid CoA ligase. B, Putative integral membrane protein. C, Histidine‐t RNA ligase. D, Restriction endonuclease S subunit. E, FAD‐dependent monooxygenase (Fragment). ***P < .001, **P < .01 and *P < .05. F, Interaction and correlation analysis of differential proteins of TB patients and MTB complex. The solid lines showed the interaction of differential proteins of TB patients, and the imaginary lines represented the correlation analysis of differential proteins of TB patients and MTB complex. The thickness of the line indicated the strength of the correlation. Significant correlation: r > .4 or r < −.4 andP < .01