| Literature DB >> 34201241 |
Julie A Webster1, Alain Wuethrich2, Karthik B Shanmugasundaram2, Renee S Richards1, Wioleta M Zelek3, Alok K Shah1, Louisa G Gordon1, Bradley J Kendall1,4,5, Gunter Hartel1, B Paul Morgan3, Matt Trau2,6, Michelle M Hill1,4.
Abstract
The current endoscopy and biopsy diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its premalignant condition Barrett's esophagus (BE) is not cost-effective. To enable EAC screening and patient triaging for endoscopy, we developed a microfluidic lectin immunoassay, the EndoScreen Chip, which allows sensitive multiplex serum biomarker measurements. Here, we report the proof-of-concept deployment for the EAC biomarker Jacalin lectin binding complement C9 (JAC-C9), which we previously discovered and validated by mass spectrometry. A monoclonal C9 antibody (m26 3C9) was generated and validated in microplate ELISA, and then deployed for JAC-C9 measurement on EndoScreen Chip. Cohort evaluation (n = 46) confirmed the expected elevation of serum JAC-C9 in EAC, along with elevated total serum C9 level. Next, we asked if the small panel of serum biomarkers improves detection of EAC in this cohort when used in conjunction with patient risk factors (age, body mass index and heartburn history). Using logistic regression modeling, we found that serum C9 and JAC-C9 significantly improved EAC prediction from AUROC of 0.838 to 0.931, with JAC-C9 strongly predictive of EAC (vs. BE OR = 4.6, 95% CI: 1.6-15.6, p = 0.014; vs. Healthy OR = 4.1, 95% CI: 1.2-13.7, p = 0.024). This proof-of-concept study confirms the microfluidic EndoScreen Chip technology and supports the potential utility of blood biomarkers in improving triaging for diagnostic endoscopy. Future work will expand the number of markers on EndoScreen Chip from our list of validated EAC biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: Barrett’s esophagus; SERS; biomarker; complement component; glycoprotein; lectin; liquid biopsy; screening; surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy; surveillance
Year: 2021 PMID: 34201241 PMCID: PMC8229863 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13122865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Characteristics of the selected cohort.
| Parameter | Category | Healthy | BE | EAC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 15 | 16 | 15 | ||
| Age (years) | Median | 64.39 | 61.89 | 61.72 | 0.146 a |
| Range | 56–75 | 52–75 | 53–74 | ||
| BMI | Healthy wt (<25) | 10.9% (5) | 6.5% (3) | 2.2% (1) | 0.054 b |
| Overweight (<30) | 10.9% (5) | 23.9% (11) | 10.9% (5) | ||
| Obese I (<35) | 10.9% (5) | 4.3% (2) | 17.4% (8) | ||
| Obese II (<40) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | ||
| Obese III (≥40) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 2.2% (1) | ||
| Heartburn and Reflux History | Never | 11.1% (5) | 4.4% (2) | 2.2% (1) | 0.005 b |
| <Once/month | 6.7% (3) | 6.7% (3) | 2.2% (1) | ||
| Monthly (few times/month) | 8.9% (4) | 13.3% (6) | 2.2% (1) | ||
| Weekly (few times/wk) | 2.2% (1) | 0.0% (0) | 15.6% (7) | ||
| Daily | 2.2% (1) | 11.1% (5) | 11.1% (5) |
Percentage calculated is percentage relative to all cases. Brackets are the number of counts of each class. a Kruskal–Wallis Test. b Fisher’s Exact Test.
Figure 1Study overview. High quality reagents including recombinant C9, C9 antibody and serum purified C9 were generated and used to develop C9 ELISA and EndoScreen Chip. The newly established assays were evaluated in a case-control cohort. Logistic regression was used to develop diagnostic algorithms for predicting BE or EAC, by combining blood markers with risk factors.
Figure 2Validation of C9 direct ELISA. His-C9 was expressed and purified for use as the standard, and serum purified C9 was spiked into C9-depleted serum at three concentrations (20 µg/mL, 40 µg/mL and 80 µg/mL). (a) Concentration estimated by the ELISA was plotted against the spiked concentration. Dilutions of 1/1250 predicted the theoretical concentration accurately while higher dilutions underestimated the theoretical concentration when samples were spiked at 40 µg/mL and 80 µg/mL (n = 3). (b) Parallelism was determined by log10 calculation of dilution vs. estimated concentration of the spiked sample, demonstrating proportionate estimates of concentration at differing dilutions (n = 3).
Figure 3Establishing the EndoScreen Chip. (a) Schematic workflow of the chip assay for JAC-C9 detection. JAC-mediated glycoprotein isolation from denatured serum samples and C9 labelling by SERS barcode-tagged anti-C9 antibody is performed under the stimulation of a nanoscopic fluid flow. JAC-C9 is detected by SERS mapping, where the Raman reporter DTNB that is conjugated to the SERS barcodes provides a characteristic Raman peak at 1335 cm−1. (b) Raman spectra of 100 ng/mL C9 in PBS (black), 100 ng/mL C9 in diluted serum (pink), blank PBS (cyan) and diluted serum (purple). (c) Corresponding averaged Raman signal intensity of DTNB (1335 cm−1). (d) Raman spectra and (e) averaged Raman signal intensity of DTNB (1335 cm−1) obtained for designated C9 concentrations spiked in diluted serum. The error bars are the standard error of three replicates. ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Serum C9 and JAC-C9 are increased in EAC in a cohort of 46 samples. (a) Serum C9 concentration was determined using direct ELISA with m26 3C9 antibody. Patients diagnosed with EAC show significantly increased C9 concentration relative to BE (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons, p = 0.0323). (b) JAC-C9 was determined using EndoScreen Chip. Patients diagnosed with EAC show significantly increased JAC-C9 relative to BE (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons, p = 0.0279). *, p < 0.05.
Figure 5Serum biomarkers improve patient stratification in the study cohort. Logistic regression modelling was conducted on the cohort (n = 46) for classification as Healthy, BE or EAC, using patient risk factors of BMI, age and heartburn/reflux history alone (Clinical Risk Model), or risk factors plus serum biomarkers C9 and JAC-C9 (Biomarker Model). (a) Probability of health status was plotted as a violin plot against true classification. Boxes indicate the true health status, shift to the right indicates improved classification. (b) Receiver operating curve (ROC) for correctly predicting health status for Clinical Risk Model (red) vs. Biomarker Model (blue). See Table 2 for statistics.
Comparison of health status classification by each model.
| Predictive model | Health Status: Healthy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | AUC | StdError | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |
|
| Clinical Risk Model | 0.7350 | 0.0886 | 0.5322 | 0.8712 | |
| Biomarker Model | 0.8272 | 0.0621 | 0.6714 | 0.9181 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Predictor | AUC | StdError | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |
|
| Clinical Risk Model | 0.7435 | 0.0726 | 0.5788 | 0.8595 | |
| Biomarker Model | 0.8405 | 0.0579 | 0.6934 | 0.9247 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Predictor | AUC | StdError | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |
|
| Clinical Risk Model | 0.8378 | 0.0624 | 0.6774 | 0.9270 | |
| Biomarker Model | 0.9311 | 0.0411 | 0.7936 | 0.9794 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUC, area under the curve; * p < 0.05.
Figure 6Serum C9 and JAC-C9 show different odds ratios for differentiating between pairs of health conditions in the Biomarker Model. * Wald’s test, p < 0.05.