| Literature DB >> 34917649 |
Jiayue Yang1, Weigang Fang2, Wenjun Wu1, Zhen Tian3, Rong Gao3, Lu Yu1, Dayang Chen2, Xiaohua Weng1, Shengwei Zhu1, Cheng Yang2.
Abstract
Background: Growing evidence has confirmed that populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increasing risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Thus, convenient and effective screening strategies for CRC should be developed for the T2DM population to increase the detection rate of CRC.Entities:
Keywords: PZP; biomarker; colorectal cancer; mass spectrum; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Year: 2021 PMID: 34917649 PMCID: PMC8670180 DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.736272
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Mol Biosci ISSN: 2296-889X
FIGURE 1The overall design of the current study. Schematic illustration of the discovery procedure for the screening of potential diagnostic biomarkers for CRC in T2DM patients based on the DIA-MS method (A) and the validated procedure based on ELISA analysis (B).
Comparison of general information between two groups.
| General information | T2DM | T2DM + CRC |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male/female) | 23/17 | 15/17 | 0.370 |
| Age (years) | 61.05 ± 9.78 | 68.69 ± 8.87 | 0.001 |
| AFP (ng/ml) | 2.70 ± 1.17 | 2.30 ± 0.72 | 0.311 |
| CEA (ng/ml) | 2.11 ± 1.09 | 19.31 ± 63.44 | <0.001 |
| CA125 (U/ml) | 9.50 ± 4.86 | 14.69 ± 24.12 | 0.377 |
| CA199 (U/ml) | 14.41 ± 10.44 | 149.10 ± 451.3 | 0.016 |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 7.95 ± 1.91 | 6.53 ± 2.09 | 0.004 |
FIGURE 2Serum protein profiles in patient cohorts in the current study. (A–C) Volcano plot exhibiting the DAPs in the T2DM, CRC and T2DM + CRC patients in comparison with healthy participants. DAPs were extracted using R language 4.0.0 with a criterion of fold change (FC) ≥ 1.50 or ≤0.67 and unpaired t-test p value ≤0.05. (D) Hierarchical cluster analysis of the 67 DAPs in the groups of healthy participants, T2DM, CRC, and T2DM + CRC. There were five samples in each group. Red represents for high expression and blue represents for low expression.
FIGURE 3Extraction of specific serum proteins in T2DM + CRC patients. (A) Venn diagram of the 67 DAPs in the serum specimens from the four comparisons (T2DM vs healthy participants, CRC vs healthy participants and T2DM + CRC vs healthy participants). (B–I) Statistical graphs of eight specific proteins levels. Unpaired t-test was used to compare the potential difference.
Unpaired t-test of the quantitative proteomic results for protein expression in the T2DM + CRC group in comparison with the control and T2DM groups.
| Proteins | T2DM + CRC vs NC | T2DM + CRC vs T2DM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold change |
| Fold change |
| |
| B2MG | 1.589 | 0.004 | 1.257 | 0.031 |
| FTO | −1.592 | 0.000 | −1.162 | 0.101 |
| HBG1 | −1.924 | 0.050 | −1.822 | 0.144 |
| KIF5A/KIF5C/KINH | −1.543 | 0.025 | −1.423 | 0.004 |
| KRT81/KRT83/KRT85/KRT86 | 2.611 | 0.009 | 1.730 | 0.017 |
| LV211 | 1.840 | 0.003 | 1.563 | 0.129 |
| LV218 | 1.660 | 0.041 | 2.067 | 0.015 |
| MDN1 | 2.757 | 0.008 | 2.274 | 0.032 |
| PZP | 2.194 | 0.039 | 3.032 | 0.027 |
| SHBG | −1.961 | 0.009 | −1.469 | 0.217 |
| ZGRF1/YD002 | −1.527 | 0.002 | −1.364 | 0.084 |
NC, healthy participant.
These proteins were excluded from subsequent analysis due to their nonspecificity.
FIGURE 4Diagnostic value of PZP and combined diagnostic analysis. (A) Serum levels of PZP in the T2DM and T2DM + CRC groups. Unpaired t-test was used to compare the potential difference. (B) ROC analysis of the diagnostic values of PZP, CA199, CEA and the combined score.