| Literature DB >> 34337202 |
Wen Li1,2,3, Qian Zhang1,2,3, Xiaobin Wang1,2,3, Hanlin Wang3, Wenxin Zuo4, Hongliang Xie4, Jianming Tang4, Mengmeng Wang4, Zhipeng Zeng4, Wanxia Cai4, Donge Tang4, Yong Dai4.
Abstract
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) belongs to salivary gland malignancies commonly occurring in an oral cavity with a poor long-term prognosis. The potential biomarkers and cellular functions acting on local recurrences and distant metastases remain to be illustrated. Proteomics is the core content of precision medicine research, which provides accurate information for early detection of cancer, benign and malignant diagnosis, classification and personalized medication, efficacy monitoring, and prognosis judgment. To obtain a comprehensive regulation network and supply clues for the treatment of oral ACC (OACC), we utilized mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics to analyze the protein expression profile in paired tumor and adjacent normal tissues. We identified a total of 40,547 specific peptides and 4454 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs), in which HAPLN1 was the most upregulated protein and BPIFB1 was the most downregulated. Then, we annotated the functions and characteristics of DEPs in detail from the aspects of gene ontology, subcellular structural localization, KEGG, and protein domain to thoroughly understand the identified and quantified proteins. Glycosphingolipid biosynthesis and glycosaminoglycan degradation pathways showed the biggest difference according to KEGG analysis. Moreover, we confirmed 20 proteins from the ECM-receptor signaling pathway by a parallel reaction monitoring quantitative detection and 19 proteins were quantified. This study provides useful insights to analyze DEPs in OACC and guide in-depth thinking of the pathogenesis from a proteomics view for anticancer mechanisms and potential biomarkers.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34337202 PMCID: PMC8319923 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c01270
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1Protein identification. (a) Basic statistical diagram of mass spectrum results. (b) Histogram of quantity distribution of DEPs. (c) Gene ontology (GO) secondary classifications of the DEPs of tissues in OACC_T and OACC_N based on BP, CC, and MF. (d) Subcellular structure localization and classification of DEPs.
Top 20 Upregulated and Downregulated DEPs
| gene name | OACC_T/OACC_N ratio | regulated type | gene name | OACC_T/OACC_N ratio | regulated type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAPLN1 | 420.496 | Up | BPIFB1 | 0.013 | down |
| FNDC1 | 348.467 | Up | MYL3 | 0.025 | down |
| LAMC2 | 119.919 | Up | ACTA1 | 0.031 | down |
| MDK | 46.291 | up | ACTN2 | 0.049 | down |
| SBSN | 38.308 | up | MYBPC1 | 0.054 | down |
| PXDN | 33.137 | up | BPIFB2 | 0.072 | down |
| CLSTN1 | 31.1 | up | MUC5B | 0.078 | down |
| THBS2 | 29.87 | up | CKM | 0.099 | down |
| ITGA9 | 29.543 | up | MYH2 | 0.099 | down |
| MFGE8 | 22.717 | up | TNNC1 | 0.107 | down |
| COL7A1 | 22.678 | up | MB | 0.108 | down |
| FABP7 | 21.936 | up | CASQ1 | 0.133 | down |
| MATN2 | 21.001 | up | B3GNT3 | 0.133 | down |
| SPARC | 20.359 | up | AGR2 | 0.139 | down |
| LAMB3 | 19.446 | up | PRR27 | 0.155 | down |
| LAMA5 | 18.018 | up | CA4 | 0.157 | down |
| VCAN | 17.68 | up | TMEM41B | 0.16 | down |
| COL5A1 | 15.761 | up | COX7A2L | 0.167 | down |
| GAS6 | 15.593 | up | KIAA0513 | 0.169 | down |
| CLEC11A | 15.59 | up | SLC35B2 | 0.169 | down |
Figure 2Functional enrichment analysis. (a) GO-based enrichment analysis of DEPs. The red bars indicate a negative value of log10 (Fisher’s exact test p value). KEGG pathway-based enrichment analysis (b) and protein domain enrichment analysis (c) of DEPs. The top 20 signal pathways with the most significant enrichment are showed by a bubble chart. The color of the circle indicates the p-value of significant enrichment, and the size of the circle indicates the differential protein number. DEPs, differentially expressed proteins.
Figure 3Functional enrichment of clusters. (a) Distribution histogram of DEPs in Q1–Q4. (b) Cluster analysis bubble chart based on BP in GO classification of the Q4 cluster. (c) Cluster analysis heat map based on protein domains.
Ratio of OACC_T/OACC_N Detected by LC–MS/MS and PRM
| protein accession | protein gene | OACC_T relative abundance | OACC_N relative abundance | OACC_T/OACC_N ratio | OACC_T/OACC_N ratio (LQ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O15230 | LAMA5 | 1.87 | 0.13 | 13.96 | 18.02 |
| P98160 | HSPG2 | 1.49 | 0.51 | 2.93 | 3.67 |
| P07942 | LAMB1 | 1.83 | 0.17 | 10.58 | 7.02 |
| P11047 | LAMC1 | 1.85 | 0.15 | 12.69 | 5.64 |
| P05556 | ITGB1 | 1.39 | 0.61 | 2.29 | 2.61 |
| P16144 | ITGB4 | 1.48 | 0.52 | 2.86 | 2.60 |
| O00468 | AGRN | 1.74 | 0.26 | 6.65 | 5.00 |
| P35442 | THBS2 | 1.96 | 0.04 | 45.87 | 29.87 |
| P24821 | TNC | 1.75 | 0.25 | 7.10 | 5.07 |
| Q16787 | LAMA3 | 1.86 | 0.14 | 13.21 | 12.62 |
| P23229 | ITGA6 | 1.44 | 0.56 | 2.59 | 2.39 |
| P17301 | ITGA2 | 1.55 | 0.45 | 3.47 | 7.30 |
| Q13751 | LAMB3 | 1.76 | 0.24 | 7.23 | 19.45 |
| P02452 | COL1A1 | 1.23 | 0.77 | 1.59 | 1.97 |
| P16070 | CD44 | 0.77 | 1.23 | 0.62 | 0.64 |
| Q16363 | LAMA4 | 1.23 | 0.77 | 1.61 | 1.56 |
| Q13753 | LAMC2 | 1.88 | 0.12 | 15.01 | 119.92 |
| P35443 | THBS4 | 1.28 | 0.72 | 1.77 | 2.84 |
| P25391 | LAMA1 | 1.90 | 0.10 | 19.08 | 12.79 |
Figure 4Differentially quantified proteins in the ECM signaling pathway. (a) Fisher’s exact test p-value in Q4 of KEGG pathway enrichment. (b). ECM–receptor interaction signaling pathway.
Clinical Information of OACC and Normal Tissue Samples
| sample ID | sex | age (years) | smoking | pathological diagnosis | tissue samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | female | 32 | no | right submandibular ACC | tumor tissue; tumor-adjacent normal tissue |
| 2 | female | 23 | no | palatal ACC | tumor tissue; tumor-adjacent normal tissue |
| 3 | male | 58 | no | left submandibular ACC | tumor tissue; tumor-adjacent normal tissue |
| 4 | male | 64 | no | left parotid gland ACC | tumor tissue; tumor-adjacent normal tissue |