| Literature DB >> 35008363 |
Elena Arance1, Viviana Ramírez1, Alejandro Rubio-Roldan1, Francisco M Ocaña-Peinado2, Catalina Romero-Cachinero3, Ana Belén Jódar-Reyes4, Fernando Vazquez-Alonso5, Luis Javier Martinez-Gonzalez1, Maria Jesus Alvarez-Cubero6,7.
Abstract
Here, the role of non-invasive biomarkers in liquid biopsy was evaluated, mainly in exosomes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) as promising, novel, and stable biomarkers for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A total of 140 fractions (named from B to F) obtained by ultracentrifugations of whole blood samples from 28 individuals (13 patients and 15 controls) were included. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) was conducted to characterized exosomal fraction. Subsequently, an analysis of digital PCR (dPCR) using the QuantStudio™ 3D Digital PCR platform was performed and the quantification of mtDNA copy number by QuantStudioTM 12K Flex Real-Time PCR System (qPCR) was developed. Moreover, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) analyses were included using MiSeq system (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). An F fraction, which contains all exosome data and all mitochondrial markers, was identified in dPCR and qPCR with statistically significant power (adjusted p values ≤ 0.03) when comparing cases and controls. Moreover, present analysis in mtDNA showed a relevant significance in RCC aggressiveness. To sum up, this is the first time a relation between exosomal mtDNA markers and clinical management of RCC is analyzed. We suggest a promising strategy for future liquid biopsy RCC analysis, although more analysis should be performed prior to application in routine clinical practice.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; exosome; extracellular vesicles; mitochondrial DNA; renal cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 35008363 PMCID: PMC8750318 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010199
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristic | Patients | Controls |
|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | ||
| Median (range)–yr | 68 (47–88) | 67 (44–93) |
| <65 yr | 5 | 6 |
| >65 yr | 8 | 9 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 11 | 7 |
| Female | 2 | 8 |
| Histology | ||
| Papillary | 1 | NA |
| Clear cell | 12 | NA |
| Size tumor (cm) | 9 (5–18) | NA |
| Stage | ||
| Stage III | 7 | |
| Stage IV | 6 | |
| TNM | NA | |
| T1 | 1 | |
| T2 | 1 | |
| T3 | 10 | |
| T4 | 1 | |
| Fuhrman nuclear grade | NA | |
| G3 | 2 | |
| G4 | 11 | |
| Metastasis | NA | |
| No | 7 | |
| Yes | 6 |
yr: years; NA: not applicable.
Fractions obtained during exosomes collection.
| Fraction | Sample | Obtaining |
|---|---|---|
| B | 200 µL plasma | Plasma obtained after centrifugation (1400× |
| C | Pellet | Pellet obtained after centrifugation with DTT + PBS (16,000× |
| D | 200 µL supernatant | Supernatant obtained after centrifugation (15,000× |
| E | 6 mL supernatant | Supernatant obtained after ultracentrifugation (160,000× |
| F | Pellet | Pellet obtained after ultracentrifugation (160,000× |
Figure 1Size distribution and concentration of plasma exosomes by Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA). (A) Control 1 and 2 with a mean concentration of 0.497 and 0.503 × 108 particles/mL, respectively. (B) Patient 1 (no metastasis) and patient 2 (metastasis) with a mean concentration of 3.493 and 5.170 × 108 particles/mL, respectively.
Figure 2Exosomal mitochondrial biomarkers (A) Phase F comparison between cases and controls for mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 (HV1) and apocytochrome B (CYB) regions. (B) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for mitochondrial markers.
Representation of the values for risk of metastasis.
| Phase | Gene | Adjusted | Adjusted | Ct Mean No | Ct Mean | Copies Per µL Mean No Metastasis ± SD | Copies Per µL Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
| 0.069 | 24.54 ± 4.18 | 22.06 ± 2.08 | 2.38 ± 3.77 | 2.55 ± 2.04 |
|
|
| 0.133 | 23.92 ± 4.61 | 21.35 ± 2.56 | 2.67 ± 3.92 | 2.56 ± 1.72 | |
|
| 0.078 | 0.223 | 25.71 ± 4.29 | 23.69 ± 2.54 | 2.08 ± 3.11 | 1.90 ± 1.35 | |
|
|
|
| 33.52 ± 2.99 | 36.09 ± 2.69 | 1.07 ± 2.02 | 0.09 ± 0.16 | |
| C |
| 0.359 |
| 19.95 ± 2.73 | 20.67 ± 2.03 | 24.36 ± 29.66 | 10.18 ± 7.37 |
|
|
|
| 19.18 ± 2.41 | 21.24 ± 0.89 | 1092.33 ± 1254.73 | 194.36 ± 102.38 | |
|
|
|
| 30.37 ± 3.71 | 32.99 ± 1.55 | 23.39 ± 49.39 | 0.38 ± 0.48 | |
| D |
|
|
| 31.84 ± 3.48 | 36.03 ± 2.77 | 7.39 ± 15.66 | 0.07 ± 0.09 |
| F |
|
|
| 31.72 ± 2.13 | 33.44 ± 1.34 | 2.22 ± 4.42 | 0.22 ± 0.19 |
Ct: cycle threshold; CYB: Apocytochrome B; HBB: Hemoglobin subunit beta; HV1: Hypervariable region 1; SD: Standard deviation. HBB as nuclear marker vs. HV1 and CYB as mitochondrial markers. (*) Just FDR adjusted p values comparing genes in cases vs. controls by qPCR analysis. Adjusted p values (cn) represent values of comparisons cases vs. controls in copy number by dPCR analysis. The italics indicates significant p values.
NGS analyses of the samples comparing autosomes versus mitochondrial genome.
| Phase | % Mapped | Mapping Quality | Percentage in Genome | RPKM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | 99 | 28.65 | Autosomes chr. 95.575% | 0.320 |
| C | 89 | 28.575 | Autosomes chr. 95.331% | 0.316 |
| D | 98 | 29.055 | Autosomes chr. 95.647% | 0.322 |
| E | 100 | 29.65 | Autosomes chr. 95.665% | 0.319 |
| F | 94 | 29.535 | Autosomes chr. 95.800% | 0.325 |
mtDNA: mitochondrial DNA; RPKM: Reads per Kilobase Million.