| Literature DB >> 33948500 |
Igor Martins Alves Melo1, Magda Rogéria Pereira Viana1, Breno Pupin1, Tanmoy Tapobrata Bhattacharjee2, Renata de Azevedo Canevari1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of cervical carcinoma cases show the presence of high-risk Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), especially HPV-16 and HPV-18, and can be used to stratify high risk patients from low risk and healthy. Currently, molecular biology techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are used to identify the presence of virus in patient samples. While the methodology is highly sensitive, it is labor intensive and time-consuming. Alternative techniques, such as vibrational spectroscopy, has been suggested as a possible rapid alternative. Therefore, in this study, we evaluate the efficiency of cervical fluid Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) in patient risk stratification informed by PCR.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer prevention; FTIR; HPV screening; PCR-RFLP
Year: 2021 PMID: 33948500 PMCID: PMC8080465 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2021.100993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochem Biophys Rep ISSN: 2405-5808
Personal characteristics and relation to HPV infection of 91 patients analyzed. *; ***: with statistical significance. ns: no statistical significance.
| FEATURE | HPV + | % | HPV - | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of the patient | < 0.0001*** | ||||
| 27 | 75,00% | 18 | 32,73% | ||
| 9 | 25,00% | 37 | 67,27% | ||
| 16 | 44,44% | 11 | 20,00% | ||
| 3 | 8,33% | 35 | 63,64% | ||
| No information | 17 | 47,22% | 9 | 16,36% | |
| 1 | 15 | 41,67% | 36 | 65,45% | |
| 2 | 6 | 16,67% | 18 | 32,73% | |
| 3 or more | 3 | 8,33% | 1 | 1,82% | |
| No information | 12 | 33,33% | 0 | 0,00% | |
| Yes | 5 | 13,89% | 8 | 14,55% | |
| No | 26 | 72,22% | 45 | 81,82% | |
| No infornation | 5 | 13,89% | 2 | 3,64% | |
| Yes | 4 | 11,11% | 18 | 32,73% | |
| No | 3 | 8,33% | 22 | 40,00% | |
| No infornation | 29 | 80,56% | 15 | 27,27% | |
| Elementary education incomplete | 0 | 0,00% | 4 | 7,27% | |
| Elementary education complete | 6 | 16,67% | 7 | 12,73% | |
| Incomplete Secondary Education | 1 | 2,78% | 5 | 9,09% | |
| Complete Secondary Education | 9 | 25,00% | 21 | 38,18% | |
| Higher Education | 12 | 33,33% | 14 | 25,45% | |
| Higher Education Incomplete | 0 | 0,00% | 1 | 1,82% | |
| No infornation | 8 | 22,22% | 3 | 5,45% |
Fig. 1Agarose gel electrophoresis (2.0%) of the PCR and PCR-RFLP product of 4 HPV + samples. Legend: PM: Molecular Weight Standard (50 bp); Sample 06: HPV 39 (bands: 260/123/72); Sample 07: HPV 44 (bands: 222/161/72); Sample 08: HPV 11 (bands: 216/135/72/26); Sample 10: HPV 58 (bands: 306/111/32).
Fig. 2Mean spectra of cervical sample containing No-HPV (normal/healthy), Low-risk HPV (LR-HPV), and High-risk HPV (HR-HPV).
Fig. 3PCA scatter plots and loading factors (PCs): scatter plot of scores of PC 1 and 2 and PCs for No-HPV vs HR-HPV (a.1) and plot of PC 1 and 2 (a.2), scatter plot of scores of PC 1 and 2 for No-HPV vs LR-HPV (b.1) and plot of PC 1 and 2 (b.2), and scatter plot of scores of PC 2 and 3 for HR-HPV vs LR-HPV (c.1) and plot of PC 2 and 3 (c.2). Legends: No-HPV (normal/healthy), Low-risk HPV (LR-HPV), and High-risk HPV (HR-HPV).
PC-LDA LOOCV confusion matrix.
| (a) | Normal | High-Risk HPV |
|---|---|---|
| Normal | 40 (100%) | 0 |
| High-Risk HPV | 0 | 28 (100%) |
| (b) | Normal | Low-Risk HPV |
| Normal | 40 (100%) | 0 |
| Low-Risk HPV | 0 | 28 (100%) |
| (c) | High-Risk HPV | Low-Risk HPV |
| High-Risk HPV | 21 (75%) | 7 (25%) |
| Low-Risk HPV | 8 (29%) | 20 (71%) |