Xia Yin1, Jing Yang1,2, Mengji Zhang1,2, Xinyao Wang3, Wei Xu1,2, Cameron-Alexander H Price4,5, Lin Huang1,2, Wanshan Liu1,2, Haiyang Su1,2, Wenjing Wang1, Hongyu Chen3, Guangjin Hou3, Mark Walker6, Ying Zhou7, Zhen Shen7, Jian Liu3,8, Kun Qian1,2, Wen Di1. 1. State Key Laboratory for Oncogenes and Related Genes, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, P.R. China. 2. School of Biomedical Engineering and Med-X Research Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, P.R. China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Catalysis, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dalian, Liaoning 116023, P.R. China. 4. The University of Manchester at Harwell, Diamond Light Source, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0DE, U.K. 5. UK Catalysis Hub, Research Complex at Harwell, Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0FA, U.K. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario ON K1H 8L6, Canada. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Auhui 230001, P.R. China. 8. DICP-Surrey Joint Centre for Future Materials, Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, and Advanced Technology Institute, University of Surrey, Guilford, Surrey GU2 7XH, U.K.
Abstract
Chemotherapy is a primary cancer treatment strategy, the monitoring of which is critical to enhancing the survival rate and quality of life of cancer patients. However, current chemotherapy monitoring mainly relies on imaging tools with inefficient sensitivity and radiation invasiveness. Herein, we develop the bowl-shaped submicroreactor chip of Au-loaded 3-aminophenol formaldehyde resin (denoted as APF-bowl&Au) with a specifically designed structure and Au loading content. The obtained APF-bowl&Au, used as the matrix of laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (LDI MS), possesses an enhanced localized electromagnetic field for strengthened small metabolite detection. The APF-bowl&Au enables the extraction of serum metabolic fingerprints (SMFs), and machine learning of the SMFs achieves chemotherapy monitoring of ovarian cancer with area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.81-0.98. Furthermore, a serum metabolic biomarker panel is preliminarily identified, exhibiting gradual changes as the chemotherapy cycles proceed. This work provides insights into the development of nanochips and contributes to a universal detection platform for chemotherapy monitoring.
Chemotherapy is a primary cancer treatment strategy, the monitoring of which is critical to enhancing the survival rate and quality of life of cancer patients. However, current chemotherapy monitoring mainly relies on imaging tools with inefficient sensitivity and radiation invasiveness. Herein, we develop the bowl-shaped submicroreactor chip of Au-loaded 3-aminophenol formaldehyde resin (denoted as APF-bowl&Au) with a specifically designed structure and Au loading content. The obtained APF-bowl&Au, used as the matrix of laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (LDI MS), possesses an enhanced localized electromagnetic field for strengthened small metabolite detection. The APF-bowl&Au enables the extraction of serum metabolic fingerprints (SMFs), and machine learning of the SMFs achieves chemotherapy monitoring of ovarian cancer with area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.81-0.98. Furthermore, a serum metabolic biomarker panel is preliminarily identified, exhibiting gradual changes as the chemotherapy cycles proceed. This work provides insights into the development of nanochips and contributes to a universal detection platform for chemotherapy monitoring.
Entities:
Keywords:
anisotropic particles; chemotherapy; mass spectrometry; metabolites; submicroreactor
Chemotherapy
is one of the leading
treatment strategies applied in over 30% of cancer patients.[1] In particular, it plays an indispensable role
in treating metastatic cancer, which cannot be directly eradicated
by surgery or radiotherapy.[2−4] Importantly, chemotherapy monitoring
is essential to avoid complications, minimize side effects, and reduce
medical costs, increasing cancer patients’ survival rate and
quality of life. To date, chemotherapy monitoring primarily relies
on imaging methods, with the intrinsic drawbacks of suboptimal sensitivity,
radiation invasiveness, and restriction to solid tumors only.[5,6] In addition, large imaging instruments hinder the potential use
in point-of-care testing (POCT) and regions with limited resources.
In contrast, high-performance blood tests of biomarkers may offer
corresponding merits of high sensitivity, fast analytical speed, low
invasiveness, and general adaptability toward POCT and universal use.[7,8] Furthermore, small metabolites[9] in the
serum provide a more real-time physiological state of the human body
compared to the nucleic acids and proteins, displaying better feasibility
for monitoring use.[8,10,11] Therefore, a high-performance detection platform is in urgent demand
to profile the serum metabolic fingerprints (SMFs) for characterizing
the pathological process of disease (e.g., chemotherapy
monitoring).Mass spectrometry (MS),[12] as a primary
tool for metabolic analysis, is capable of superior sensitivity and
improved molecular identification by the high-resolution recording
of metabolites (±10 mDa) in comparison to nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR).[13,14] Notably, laser desorption ionization (LDI)
MS further enhances the detection sensitivity to the femtomolar level,
where the matrix plays a critical role in facilitating the solid-to-gas
transition.[15,16] The traditional organic matrix
exhibited huge success in macromolecule detection (e.g., protein) as honored by the Nobel Prize;[17,18] however, its potential use in small metabolite detection has been
hindered because of the unwanted fragmentation in the low mass range
(<1000 Da) and uneven cocrystallization with biosamples (e.g., serum). Although the exploration of inorganic matrices
revealed some promising discoveries to address the current obstacles
of the organic matrix, it is far from ideal to detect the small metabolite
from complex biosamples. The rational design of the inorganic matrix
is key to improve the LDI efficiency toward constructing the next-generation
high-performance detection platform.Noble metal-decorated nanostructures
have been widely applied in
energy storage, catalysis, and biomedicine,[19−21] the performance
of which is determined by their corresponding micro/nanostructure
and composition. Recently, particles with anisotropic architectures
(e.g., Janus particles) have attracted more attention
over isotropic particles by presenting intriguing properties as matrices
in LDI MS,[22,23] while few of them were utilized
for metabolic fingerprint analysis toward biomedical applications
caused by complex preparation procedures. The bowl-shaped particle
can be fabricated via a facile solvent-assisted repolymerization
process, and its concave domain enables the trapping of light with
long scattering length, which can be desirable for matrix use but
has not been explored yet.[24−27] As for composition, the noble metal nanoparticles
present superior light absorption and electrical conductivity that
allow for the facilitation of the desorption/ionization of analytes
under laser irradiation.[28−30] In particular, Au nanoparticles
display preferable stability and high biocompatibility, serving as
a primary candidate for biosample detection.[31,32] Accordingly, bowl-structured particles decorated with Au nanoparticles
as the matrix of LDI MS analysis would allow for strengthened metabolic
detection and further conquer the dilemma of current chemotherapy
monitoring.Herein, we report the submicroreactor APF-bowl&Au
chip-assisted
LDI MS for chemotherapy monitoring of ovarian cancer (Scheme ). We report various chips
of APF&MAu (where APF represents 3-aminophenol
formaldehyde resin, “&” represents loading, and M (=0.72/0.96/1.20) is calculated as the theoretical mass
ratio of Au over APF) with an adjustable structure and tunable Au
loading content, both of which are rationally designed and synthesized.
The desirable properties of laser trapping and charge transfer of
the optimized APF-bowl&0.96Au enable the SMFs’ extraction
by using only 1 μL of serum per sample within 1 min (Scheme a). The chemotherapy
cycles of ovarian cancer can be monitored by machine learning of SMFs
with area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.81–0.98 (Scheme b). This work promotes the
development of anisotropic submicroreactor chips in metabolic analysis
and provides a shortcut for precision prognostics in cancer therapy.
Scheme 1
SMFs Extraction by APF-bowl&Au Chip and Chemotherapy Monitoring
by Machine Learning Methods
(a) The workflow
for SMFs
acquisition by APF-bowl&Au assisted LDI MS, including the incubation
of 1 μL of serum sample with matrix suspension of APF-bowl&Au
and detection by LDI MS equipped with Nd:YAG laser (355 nm) for obtaining
the cation adducted signals of metabolites ([M + Na]+ and
[M + K]+). The APF-bowl&Au was prepared by etching
the APF-sphere with acetone and then introducing the Au nanoparticles.
(b) Machine learning of SMFs for chemotherapy monitoring. The SMFs
of patients before chemotherapy and after different cycles of chemotherapy,
including cycle 1 (C1), cycle 2 (C2), and cycle n (n ≥ 5, C), could be extracted by data preprocessing of the original
mass spectra. The database of SMFs, assisted with machine learning
methods, could achieve the chemotherapy monitoring and yielded a preliminarily
identified metabolic biomarker panel.
SMFs Extraction by APF-bowl&Au Chip and Chemotherapy Monitoring
by Machine Learning Methods
(a) The workflow
for SMFs
acquisition by APF-bowl&Au assisted LDI MS, including the incubation
of 1 μL of serum sample with matrix suspension of APF-bowl&Au
and detection by LDI MS equipped with Nd:YAG laser (355 nm) for obtaining
the cation adducted signals of metabolites ([M + Na]+ and
[M + K]+). The APF-bowl&Au was prepared by etching
the APF-sphere with acetone and then introducing the Au nanoparticles.
(b) Machine learning of SMFs for chemotherapy monitoring. The SMFs
of patients before chemotherapy and after different cycles of chemotherapy,
including cycle 1 (C1), cycle 2 (C2), and cycle n (n ≥ 5, C), could be extracted by data preprocessing of the original
mass spectra. The database of SMFs, assisted with machine learning
methods, could achieve the chemotherapy monitoring and yielded a preliminarily
identified metabolic biomarker panel.
Results and Discussion
Morphological
and Structural Characterization of APF&Au
Chips
The APF&Au chips, prepared according to the procedures
in Scheme a, were
characterized in terms of their morphology and structure (Figure ). The APF-sphere
with elements uniformly distributed (including C, O, and N; see scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) image and elemental mapping in Figure a and Supporting Figure 1, respectively) were synthesized
by the polymerization of 3-aminophenol and formaldehyde for 30 min,
showing an average particle size of ca. 320 nm. The
polymerization and nucleation rate of the APF-sphere is fast at room
temperature (<1 min) owing to well-established ongoing phenol-formaldehyde
type reaction and nucleophilic addition of amino and aldehydes. Further
increase in polymerization degree will mainly occur in the outer layer
of the APF-sphere because its intrinsic morphology blocks the contact
between the oligomer in the solution and the inner surface. Therefore,
the short polymerization process leads to an exploitable inhomogeneity
in the inner structure and outer shell composition.[33,34] Acetone, because it is a polar solvent, can dissolve the inner low
polymerization degree APF resin. Similar to a deflation process, the
internally dissolved oligomer was driven to flow out under osmotic
pressure, and the obtained hollow shells were extruded into bowl-like
particles.[24] The transformation of the
sphere into a bowl structure was accomplished rapidly (<5 min)
after adding acetone, and the structure was found to be stable (Supporting Figure 2). Because of this, the uniform
APF-bowl is similar in size to the original APF-sphere (SEM image
shown in Figure b
and elemental mapping shown in Figure c). Notably, APF-bowls with their specific open-structure
possessed a specific surface area of 47.32 m2 g–1, which is much larger than that of APF-sphere of 14.89 m2 g–1, as revealed by nitrogen (N2) adsorption
measurements (Figure d), thereby providing more adsorption sites for small metabolites.
Figure 1
Morphological
and structural characterization of APF&Au chips.
The SEM images of (a) APF-sphere and (b) APF-bowl. (c) The elemental
mapping of APF-bowl containing C (red), O (blue), and N (green). (d)
The N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms of APF-bowl
(red) and APF-sphere (black) with the specific surface area
labeled. The SEM images of (e) APF-sphere&Au, (f) APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(g) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (h) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The TEM images
of (i) APF-sphere&Au, (j) APF-bowl&0.72Au, (k) APF-bowl&0.96Au,
and (l) APF-bowl&1.20Au. (m) The elemental mapping of APF-bowl&Au
containing C (red), N (green), Au (yellow), and O (blue). (n) The
SAED pattern of APF-bowl&Au with typical rings of (111), (200),
(220), (311), and (222) of Au. (o) The HR TEM image displayed the
Au crystal lattice of 2.03 Å for (200). (p) The XPS characterizations
of APF-sphere&Au (top) and APF-bowl&Au (down). The scale bar
is 200 nm in panels a, b, and e–l, 100 nm in panels c and m,
and 1 nm in panel o.
Morphological
and structural characterization of APF&Au chips.
The SEM images of (a) APF-sphere and (b) APF-bowl. (c) The elemental
mapping of APF-bowl containing C (red), O (blue), and N (green). (d)
The N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms of APF-bowl
(red) and APF-sphere (black) with the specific surface area
labeled. The SEM images of (e) APF-sphere&Au, (f) APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(g) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (h) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The TEM images
of (i) APF-sphere&Au, (j) APF-bowl&0.72Au, (k) APF-bowl&0.96Au,
and (l) APF-bowl&1.20Au. (m) The elemental mapping of APF-bowl&Au
containing C (red), N (green), Au (yellow), and O (blue). (n) The
SAED pattern of APF-bowl&Au with typical rings of (111), (200),
(220), (311), and (222) of Au. (o) The HR TEM image displayed the
Au crystal lattice of 2.03 Å for (200). (p) The XPS characterizations
of APF-sphere&Au (top) and APF-bowl&Au (down). The scale bar
is 200 nm in panels a, b, and e–l, 100 nm in panels c and m,
and 1 nm in panel o.Moreover, there is a
slight difference in composition between the
APF-sphere and APF-bowl. Within 180 min of adding acetone, dissolution
of polymer and repolymerization of oligomer continue to occur, which
can be explained by the dynamic change of carbon content ratio on
the branched-chain (c-13C) and benzene ring (r-13C) measured by the 13C nuclear magnetic resonance (13C NMR, Supporting Figure 3a).
Notably, the APF-bowl obtained at 180 min have a more significant
portion of c-13C than APF-sphere (0 min, Supporting Figure 3b). We speculate that the acetone acts
as a solvent and participates in the nucleophilic addition and condensation
reaction with the hydroxy/amino group of APF.[24] The above process could also account for the higher content of N
and O on the APF-bowl surface than that of the APF-sphere (Supporting Figure 4).The Au nanoparticles
were then introduced for assembling the APF&Au
chips by in situ reduction of Au precursor on APF
with proper reducibility. The APF-sphere&Au chips displayed a
rough surface by SEM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Figure e,i) with the Au
content characterized by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS)
(Supporting Figure 4a–c). The Au
nanoparticles were also decorated on the APF-bowl, yielding a series
of APF-bowl&MAu chips (M = 0.72/0.96/1.20)
with surface roughness and nanocavities, revealed by electron microscopy
images (Figure , f
to h, and j to l) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) images (Supporting Figure 5). As the Au precursor supply
increased, the relative Au contents showed an increasing trend according
to the EDS characterizations (Supporting Figure 4d–h). Thermogravimetric (TG) analysis was further carried
out to determine the Au content in APF-bowl&MAu (Supporting Figure 6), which showed
high consistency with only a slight difference in the theoretical
value. The uniform distribution of elements in APF-bowl&Au is
exhibited in Figure m. The crystalline structure of Au nanoparticles in APF-bowl&Au
is illustrated by the selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern
(Figure n), high-resolution
TEM (HRTEM, Figure o), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern (Supporting Figure 7). The stable crystalline structure of the APF-bowl&Au
can avoid introducing the background noise under laser irradiation
and is desirable for application as an LDI MS matrix. Notably, the
valence states of Au in APF-bowl&Au are the mixed states of Au+ and Au0, characterized by X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy (XPS), while APF-sphere&Au contain an extra small
amount of Au3+, correlating with the incomplete self-reduction
process of the intrinsic APF-sphere (Figure p and Supporting Figure 8). The metallic Au in APF-bowl&Au is expected to have
better light-trapping ability. As the surface roughness can be regulated
to satisfy diverse biomedical applications (Supporting Table 1), the optimized Au loading content with desirable surface
nanocavities would strengthen the APF&Au chips regarding the charge
transfer as LDI MS matrix for metabolite detection.Notably,
the APF-bowl&Au displays distinct features compared
to previously reported noble metal nanostructures in material design
and potential in LDI MS detection. From the point of view of material
design, the features rely on the following aspects: (1) different
from most isotropic structures of noble metal decorated nanostructures
(e.g., sphere[9,35]), it is an anisotropic
open bowl-structured submicroreactor that we developed, which provides
specific micro/nanostructures with enhanced mass diffusion and enrichment
of biomarkers for LDI MS application; (2) considering the synthetic
method, we prepared APF bowls using a facile strategy of solvent-assisted
repolymerization by taking advantage of the difference of polymerization
degree of APF, which is more cost-effective than hard-template methods
or lithography;[36−38] (3) for the loading of Au nanoparticles, the Au nanoparticles
can be in situ reduced in the APF-bowl because of
its abundant reducing groups, free of the reductants required in other
studies.[39,40]For LDI MS application, the APF-bowl&Au
submicroreactor exhibits
great potential in untargeted metabolic detection as compared with
most anisotropic morphologies that have been applied for targeted
molecule detection (e.g., endogenous metabolites
and drug metabolites) (Supporting Table 2). This is attributed to the following aspects: (1) it is simple
to adjust the submicroreactor structure (bowl/sphere) and composition
(Au loading contents), which is of significance to explore the LDI
process and further exploit the MS detection performance; (2) the
open bowl-shaped submicroreactor displays an enhanced light-trapping
property and large specific surface area, which would be beneficial
for harvesting the laser energy and exposing Au nanoparticles to small
molecule metabolites (ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) absorption
spectra, Supporting Figure 9);[27] (3) Au nanoparticles present high production
yields of hot charge carriers for expediting the charge transfer on
the analyte–matrix interface toward metabolite detection, the
tailored loading content of which can modulate the surface chemistry
for selective metabolite enrichment.[39,41]
Exploration
of APF&Au Chips for LDI MS Detection
The APF&Au chips
with the adjustable structure of bowl/sphere
and tunable Au loading content were applied as matrices for LDI MS
detection, including small metabolites and actual serum sample (Figure ). We used the APF&Au
chips for LDI MS detection of typical small metabolites (Figure a), yielding the
sodium-/potassium-adducted metabolic signals ([M + Na]+ and [M + K]+) for valine (Val), glycyl-glycine (Gly),
and uracil (Ura). Notably, the APF-bowl&0.96Au afforded the highest
intensities compared with optimized APF-sphere&Au (APF-sphere&0.96Au, Supporting Figure 10) and APF-bowl loaded with
other Au loading content (APF-bowl&0.72Au and APF-bowl&1.20Au)
(Figure b and Supporting Figure 11). Similar results were also
obtained in other representative small metabolites (such as glucose,
decanoic acid, and leucine; Supporting Table 3).
Figure 2
Exploration of APF&Au chips for LDI MS detection. (a) Typical
mass spectra using APF-bowl&0.96Au for detecting standard small
metabolites of valine (Val), glycyl-glycine (Gly), and uracil (Ura).
The [M + Na]+ and [M + K]+ are separately labeled.
(b) Mean signal intensities based on three independent experiments
for [M + Na]+ of standard small metabolites by using (i)
APF-sphere&Au, (ii)APF-bowl&0.72Au, (iii) APF-bowl&0.96Au,
and (iv) APF-bowl&1.20Au. (c) The representative mass spectrum
from a serum sample using APF-bowl&0.96Au (m/z of 100–500). (d) Two small metabolites of hydroxybutyric
acid (m/z of 103.95) and maleic
acid (m/z of 116.84) detected in
the representative mass spectrum, reported as the biomarkers for ovarian
cancer. (e) The averaged TIC for a serum sample based on three independent
experiments, by using the matrix of (i) APF-sphere&Au, (ii)APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(iii) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (iv) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The plots
of EM field amplitudes for (f) APF-sphere&Au, (g) APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(h) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (i) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The EM field
is shown as log(|E|2/|E0|2), where E and E0 refer to the enhanced field and incident laser,
respectively. The results of panels f–i were obtained by the
simulation of finite element method with laser wavelength of 355 nm
injected along the z-axis and laser beam polarized
along the x-axis.
Exploration of APF&Au chips for LDI MS detection. (a) Typical
mass spectra using APF-bowl&0.96Au for detecting standard small
metabolites of valine (Val), glycyl-glycine (Gly), and uracil (Ura).
The [M + Na]+ and [M + K]+ are separately labeled.
(b) Mean signal intensities based on three independent experiments
for [M + Na]+ of standard small metabolites by using (i)
APF-sphere&Au, (ii)APF-bowl&0.72Au, (iii) APF-bowl&0.96Au,
and (iv) APF-bowl&1.20Au. (c) The representative mass spectrum
from a serum sample using APF-bowl&0.96Au (m/z of 100–500). (d) Two small metabolites of hydroxybutyric
acid (m/z of 103.95) and maleic
acid (m/z of 116.84) detected in
the representative mass spectrum, reported as the biomarkers for ovarian
cancer. (e) The averaged TIC for a serum sample based on three independent
experiments, by using the matrix of (i) APF-sphere&Au, (ii)APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(iii) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (iv) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The plots
of EM field amplitudes for (f) APF-sphere&Au, (g) APF-bowl&0.72Au,
(h) APF-bowl&0.96Au, and (i) APF-bowl&1.20Au. The EM field
is shown as log(|E|2/|E0|2), where E and E0 refer to the enhanced field and incident laser,
respectively. The results of panels f–i were obtained by the
simulation of finite element method with laser wavelength of 355 nm
injected along the z-axis and laser beam polarized
along the x-axis.Moreover, the series of APF&Au chips were exerted to detect
a complex serum sample, and the detection performance could be evaluated
by the total ion count (TIC, as the intensity summation of the mass
spectrum). The typical mass spectrum of serum, containing ∼120 000
data points (m/z range of 100–1000),
was recorded by APF-bowl&0.96Au assisted LDI MS using only 1 μL
of raw serum within 1 min (Figure c), affording the TIC of 6.2 × 106 according
to three independent measurements. Two ovarian cancer biomarkers of
hydroxybutyric acid[42,43] and maleic acid[44,45] were detected in the representative mass spectrum, revealing the
potential of small metabolites in decoding disease (Figure d). In contrast, suboptimal
TICs of serum mass spectra were afforded by APF-sphere&Au (TIC
of 7.0 × 105), APF-bowl&0.72Au (TIC of 1.4 ×
106), and APF-bowl&1.20Au (TIC of 9.6 × 105, p < 0.05; Figure e and Supporting Table 4). Therefore, the superiority of APF-bowl&0.96Au was demonstrated
in both LDI MS detection of small metabolite and serum.To further
exemplify the intrinsic feature of APF-bowl&0.96Au
chip as LDI MS matrix, we investigated the localized electromagnetic
(EM) field distribution using the finite element method. The incident
laser wavelength for simulation was set at 355 nm, in keeping with
the laser used for LDI MS, and the size and morphology of the submicroreactor
chips refer to the electron microscopy characterizations. The Au nanoparticle
of all submicroreactor chips was set as 10 nm to ensure more accurate
comparison, the uniform random distribution of which was consistent
with the practical synthesis reaction system (Supporting Figure 12). For the structure, the bowl-shaped
submicroreactor chips (APF-bowl&Au) owned the higher relative
enhancement of 4.45–7.28 in the EM field, higher than that
reported for the sphere structure (APF-sphere&Au of 3.55, Figure f). The EM field
enhancement of the matrix structure correlates with its capability
to trap light (e.g., scattering and reflection) for
affecting the LDI efficiency.[24,25] Compared with the spherical
architecture, the bowl architecture affords a higher scattering/reflection
effect in its concave domain for enhancing EM field and facilitating
the LDI process when used as the matrix.[27] Coupled with the higher specific surface area (Figure d), the APF-bowl&Au exhibited
the metabolite signals with higher intensities over APF-sphere&Au
(Figure a–e).
Notably, while the bowl-shaped matrix has been explored in surface
catalysis, it is rarely employed in metabolic detection. We undertook
a preliminarily study to determine the better performance of APF-bowl&Au
over APF-sphere&Au according to the LDI MS detection and EM field
simulation.In parallel, we examined the localized EM field
with adjustable
Au loading content. The APF-bowl&0.96Au displayed the highest
relative enhancement of 7.28 (Figure h), compared with APF-bowl&0.72Au (relative enhancement
of 6.29, Figure g)
and APF-bowl&1.20Au (relative enhancement of 4.45, Figure i). The matrix composition
is also crucial to LDI efficiency by altering the localized EM field.[46] Compared to pure APF-bowl, the introduction
of Au nanoparticles on the APF-bowl expands the light adsorption range
because of the intrinsic plasmonic effect of Au nanoparticles as a
characteristic plasmonic adsorption peak of Au nanoparticles appears
at about 600 nm in UV–vis absorption spectra (Supporting Figure 9). Moreover, for the hybrid matrix containing
noble metal elements, the loading content can manipulate its distribution
and physicochemical properties; the tailored loading content of noble
metal elements can adjust the surface roughness and hot carrier yield
to generate an enhanced localized EM field (i.e.,
plasmonic hot spots).[47] When comparing
the different Au loadings, the APF-bowl&0.96Au exhibited superior
capability in small metabolite detection (Figure a–e) because of its desirable distribution
of nanoscaled cavities within Au nanoparticles for higher yield of
hot carriers, in line with the EM field simulation results (Figure g–i). In addition,
we demonstrated the optimized Au loading content of APF-bowl&0.96Au
contributes to the size-exclusive effect for selective trapping of
small metabolites and excluding the macromolecules (e.g., proteins), displaying the preferable protein tolerance in small
metabolite detection (Supporting Figures 13 and 14). Taken together, we demonstrated the specific bowl structure
and optimized Au loading content both contribute to APF-bowl&0.96Au
as the primary candidate for the construction of the high-performance
submicroreactor toward biomedical applications, such as monitoring
of cancer treatment.
Machine Learning of SMFs for Chemotherapy
Monitoring
We extracted the SMFs of ovarian cancer patients
before and after
different chemotherapy cycles for analysis using the established submicroreactor
of APF-bowl&0.96Au chip (Figure ). We enrolled 243 serum samples of ovarian cancer
patients, including 66 samples before chemotherapy, 47 samples after
cycle 1 of chemotherapy (marked as C1), 54 samples after
cycle 2 of chemotherapy (marked as C2), and 76 samples
after cycle n of chemotherapy (n ≥ 5, marked as C). Each cycle
represented a standard chemotherapy treatment of 21 days. All the
ovarian cancer patients in this study were diagnosed by pathological
examination and received the combined chemotherapy of paclitaxel and
carboplatin (Supporting Table 5). According
to the Helsinki Declaration, this study was approved by the institutional
ethics committees of the Renji Hospital and School of Biomedical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Ethic number 2018-114), and all individuals
provided written informed consent to participate in the study and
approved the use of their biological samples for analysis.
Figure 3
Machine learning
of SMFs for chemotherapy monitoring. (a) The blueprint
of 243 SMFs, which were extracted from 66 samples before chemotherapy
(marked as before), 47 samples after cycle 1 of chemotherapy (marked
as C1), 54 samples after cycle 2 of chemotherapy (marked
as C2), and 76 samples after cycle n (n ≥ 5) of chemotherapy (marked as C). Each SMF consisted of 295 m/z signals by preprocessing the original mass spectra. (b) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C1 group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively. (c) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C2 group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively. (d) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively.
The training and test set ROC curves are presented in red and black
with corresponding AUC values labeled.
Machine learning
of SMFs for chemotherapy monitoring. (a) The blueprint
of 243 SMFs, which were extracted from 66 samples before chemotherapy
(marked as before), 47 samples after cycle 1 of chemotherapy (marked
as C1), 54 samples after cycle 2 of chemotherapy (marked
as C2), and 76 samples after cycle n (n ≥ 5) of chemotherapy (marked as C). Each SMF consisted of 295 m/z signals by preprocessing the original mass spectra. (b) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C1 group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively. (c) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C2 group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively. (d) Differentiation
of ovarian patients before chemotherapy and patients in C group using SMFs (left) and CA-125 (right), respectively.
The training and test set ROC curves are presented in red and black
with corresponding AUC values labeled.We recorded the metabolic m/z signals
of ovarian cancer patients before and after different cycles
of chemotherapy in the low mass range (m/z of 100–1000) by using only 1 μL of serum
per sample. The original mass spectra of each serum sample (containing
∼120 000 data points) could be obtained in 1 min without
tedious pretreatment (Supporting Figure 15) because of the synergetic design of APF-bowl&0.96Au chips for
small metabolite enrichment under the interference of salts/macromolecules.
On the basis of the desirable submicroreactor of the APF-bowl&0.96Au
chip, we extracted SMFs from the above 243 ovarian cancer patients
by preprocessing the original mass spectra, yielding 295 m/z signals for each SMF. Specifically, the 243 SMFs
with 295 m/z signals were further
organized as the blueprint in Figure a, serving as the database for building a chemotherapy
monitoring model.The power analysis[48,49] was also conducted to evaluate
the sample size of this study (Supporting Figure 16), which was larger than the required minimum number (16
samples per group) for building a machine learning model. The required
small sample size in the study is attributed to both the significant
metabolic alternations raised by chemotherapy and the superiority
of the detection platform. Specifically, the chemotherapy process
can significantly change the pathological and physiological conditions
of the human body, particularly for small metabolites in the downstream
pathways. The collaborative design of the APF-bowl&0.96Au submicroreactor
was also critical to extracting the SMFs efficiently, enabling the
revelation of metabolic differences during chemotherapy. In addition,
the sample size of this study (243 samples) was comparable with that
of previous literature (∼30–200 samples).[9,50,51]We built the chemotherapy
monitoring model of ovarian cancer by
machine learning of the SMF database and evaluated the model performance
by comparing it with a clinical biomarker of CA-125.[10,11] The monitoring model was built according to the different cycles
of chemotherapy. For C1, the SMFs achieved the AUC of 0.81
with sensitivity/specificity of 0.78/0.77 for differentiating the
patients before chemotherapy, comparable with that of CA-125 (AUC
of 0.78 with sensitivity/specificity of 0.65/0.80; Figure b and Supporting Table 6). As chemotherapy progressed to cycle 2 and cycle n (n ≥ 5), the SMFs afforded the
enhanced AUC of 0.99 (sensitivity/specificity of 0.96/0.96; Figure c and Supporting Table 7) and 0.98 (sensitivity/specificity
of 0.98/0.96; Figure d and Supporting Table 8), respectively.
In contrast, the clinical biomarker of CA-125 exhibited the suboptimal
AUC as 0.86 (sensitivity/specificity of 0.86/0.76, Figure c) and 0.93 (sensitivity/specificity
of 0.86/0.86, Figure d). Moreover, we reached similar results in the independent test
set, further validating the superior performance of SMFs generated
by LDI MS over CA-125, particularly for C2 and C.In detail, we examined four primary machine
learning methods for
reaching satisfactory results, including elastic net (EN), least absolute
shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), partial least-squares (PLS)
regression, and decision tree (Supporting Figures 17–19 and Supporting Tables 6–8). The study design of training and independent test sets can avoid
overfitting performance, thus obtaining a robust chemotherapy monitoring
model. Considering the rational design of the model building, we could
conclude that SMFs outperformed the current clinical biomarker of
CA-125 in chemotherapy monitoring according to diagnostic performance
in both training and test sets.Toward the clinical application
on a large scale, the submicroreactor
for SMFs also needs to address sensitivity, throughput, and analytical
speed requirements. Accordingly, the APF-bowl&0.96Au assisted
LDI MS provides the following advantages: (1) high sensitivity at
femtomolar level due to the advanced submicroreactor of APF-bowl&0.96Au
in metabolic signal detection, superior to the widely used NMR with
sensitivity at the micromolar level;[13,14] (2) high throughput,
as the original mass spectrum recorded by APF-bowl&0.96Au contains
∼120 000 data points and 295 m/z signals after processing (Figure a); and (3) fast analytical speed of <1
min per sample for mass spectrum acquisition due to the direct serum
analysis in a label-free manner with no tedious pretreatment (e.g., derivatization).[52] Hence,
the APF-bowl&0.96Au assisted LDI MS can achieve efficient SMF
extraction, serving as an ideal submicroreactor for chemotherapy monitoring
in the clinical scenario.Clinical chemotherapy monitoring is
guided by the response evaluation
criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), which is assisted
with CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging tools for characterizing
the tumor lesions within the treatment period.[5] However, RECIST v1.1 cannot satisfy the clinical needs in chemotherapy
monitoring because of the heterogeneity of tumor growth, delayed feedback,
and suboptimal resolution of imaging tools.[6] In addition, no single tumor biomarker could be applied for chemotherapy
evaluation because of the limited monitoring performance. Although
the CA-125 was reported as the diagnostic and prognostic biomarker
of ovarian cancer, its serum level showed restriction in the clinical
use of chemotherapy monitoring, particularly for ovarian cancer patients
with low serum levels of CA-125 before chemotherapy. As illustrated
by our results, the SMFs outperformed CA-125 in chemotherapy monitoring
through the accurate profiling of human physiological states with
different cycles of chemotherapy (Figure b–d). Moreover, compared to imaging
tools, the established submicroreactor also affords in-time feedback
and high resolution (within ±10 mDa), thus demonstrating its
potential as a next-generation tool for chemotherapy monitoring.
Potential Biomarkers for Chemotherapy Monitoring
We
preliminarily identified a metabolic biomarker panel for chemotherapy
monitoring, including six metabolites selected from the SMFs of ovarian
cancer patients (Figure ; for more details, see Methods). In addition
to SMF extraction from the raw mass spectrum by data processing, two
main procedures for screening out potential metabolic biomarkers were
signature selection and biomarker identification (Figure a). Specifically, for the signal
selection, we screened out six m/z signals with a significant difference (p < 0.05)
between ovarian cancer patients before chemotherapy and after chemotherapy
(Figure b). For biomarker
identification, six potential biomarkers were obtained by accurate
mass measurements and alignment with the human metabolite database
(Supporting Table 9, see more details in Methods). As chemotherapy proceeded, these six potential
biomarkers showed a gradual decreasing trend (Figure b and Supporting Table 10).[53]
Figure 4
Potential biomarkers
for chemotherapy monitoring. (a) The workflow
for screening out the potential biomarkers from SMFs of 295 m/z signals. For signature selection, six m/z signals were screened out with significant
differences before and after chemotherapy of ovarian cancer patients.
For biomarker identification, six potential biomarkers were identified
by accurate mass measurements and alignment with the metabolite database.
(b) Scatter plots of potential biomarkers among ovarian patients before
chemotherapy and after chemotherapy of C1/C2/C (n ≥ 5).
The significant difference between ovarian patients before and after
chemotherapy was measured by the statistical test, and a gradual decrease
trend was found as the chemotherapy cycle proceeded. **** indicates p< 0.0001.
Potential biomarkers
for chemotherapy monitoring. (a) The workflow
for screening out the potential biomarkers from SMFs of 295 m/z signals. For signature selection, six m/z signals were screened out with significant
differences before and after chemotherapy of ovarian cancer patients.
For biomarker identification, six potential biomarkers were identified
by accurate mass measurements and alignment with the metabolite database.
(b) Scatter plots of potential biomarkers among ovarian patients before
chemotherapy and after chemotherapy of C1/C2/C (n ≥ 5).
The significant difference between ovarian patients before and after
chemotherapy was measured by the statistical test, and a gradual decrease
trend was found as the chemotherapy cycle proceeded. **** indicates p< 0.0001.The biomarker with related pathway analysis was also conducted
using MetaboAnalyst (http://www.metaboanalyst.ca/).[48,54] For biomarker analysis, we evaluated the
fold change of potential biomarkers before and after chemotherapy
based on the corresponding signal intensities. Specifically, the most
significant fold change of 2.58 and lowest fold change of 1.43 were
afforded by N-acetylasparagine and hydroxybutyric acid, respectively
(Supporting Table 10). We identified two
altered pathways related to the above biomarker panel for pathway
analysis: the glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism (pathway impact
of 0.22) and glycine, serine, and threonine metabolism (pathway impact
of 0.05, Supporting Figure 20). Alternation
of these two pathways resulted from the downregulation of hydroxybutyric
acid after chemotherapy. The above pathway analysis based on the constructed
biomarker panel would provide more insights for unveiling chemotherapy
monitoring.The metabolic biomarker serves as the indicator
of biological conditions
and is critical to the illustration of chemotherapy mechanism.[55,56] Specifically, four metabolic biomarkers identified in this study
showed high consistency with previous literature: For hydroxybutyric
acid, it has been reported as the diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers
of ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas, the serum level of which
may indicate cancer cell migration and invasion and contribute to
chemotherapy monitoring.[42,43] Maleic acid can affect
chemotherapy efficiency by altering the tricarboxylic acid cycle and
the tumor cell energy metabolism.[44,45] Notably, cysteine
released by fibroblasts leads to platinum-based chemotherapy resistance,
the decreased level of which can predict an efficient chemotherapy.[57,58] For N-acetylasparagine, its decreased level correlates with the
depletion of aspartate toward inhibition of tumor growth.[59] 3-Hydroxy-2-methylpyridine-4,5-dicarboxylate
and dihydroneopterin phosphate are two metabolic biomarkers first
discovered in this study, presumably affecting the chemotherapy via vitamin B6 metabolism and biosynthesis of folate.[60,61] Regarding the crucial role of metabolites in the pathway analysis,
the established biomarker panel can guide targeting and efficient
cancer chemotherapy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we fabricated
the submicroreactor of APF-bowl&Au
chips for recording the SMFs by LDI MS and achieved rapid and precise
chemotherapy monitoring with the assistance of machine learning methods.
The APF&Au chips with anisotropic bowl structure and preferable
Au loading content have been well investigated, affording the enhanced
EM field for efficient LDI MS detection and SMFs extraction. Machine
learning of the SMFs achieved the chemotherapy monitoring of ovarian
cancer with an AUC of 0.81–0.98 and yielded a metabolic biomarker
panel, promoting the revelation of the chemotherapy mechanism. Our
advanced detection platform based on the bowl-structured submicroreactor
chips would efficiently monitor cancer chemotherapy and is very promising
to be a universal tool for clinical application on a large scale.The limitations and future research lines of this study need to
be stated as follows: (1) our detection platform relies on the MS
system for recording the SMFs, which may restrict its potential use
from POCT; (2) the investigation of anisotropic structures beyond
bowl-shaped matrix would contribute to an elevated LDI efficiency
and improved metabolic analysis; (3) a comprehensive evaluation of
chemotherapy efficiency would be achieved by involving more individuals
with follow-up visit outcomes; (3) a well-designed case-cohort with
cancer patients besides ovarian cancer could further increase the
performance and extend the application scenarios of our platform.
Methods
Chemicals and Reagents
Formaldehyde solution (CH2O, 36.0%) was obtained from
Aladdin Reagent (Shanghai, China).
3-Aminophenol, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, 99%), valine (98%), glycyl-glycine
(99%), uracil (99%), glucose (99.5%), decanoic acid (98%), leucine
(98%), methionine (98%), and bovine serum albumin (BSA) were obtained
from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, United States). The acetone (99.5%),
ammonia aqueous solution (NH3·H2O, 28%),
and chloroauric acid tetrahydrate (HauCl4·4H2O, 47.8%) were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd.
(Beijing, China). Deionized water (18.2 MΩ cm, Milli-Q, Millipore,
GmbH) was utilized for preparing the aqueous solution in this study.
Preparation of APF-sphere and APF-bowl
The APF-sphere
was fabricated by polymerization of the formaldehyde and 3-aminophenol.
Typically, 3-aminophenol (0.1 g) was dissolved in 30 mL of deionized
water, followed by the addition of formaldehyde solution (0.1 mL)
and aqueous ammonia solution (0.1 mL). The mixture was stirred at
30 °C for 30 min, yielding APF-sphere after washing with deionized
water 5 times. The APF-bowl was synthesized by dissolving the APF-sphere
with acetone solution. In detail, the acetone solution (40 mL) was
directly added into the APF-sphere suspension that was already polymerizing
for 30 min, and the mixture was then stirred at 30 °C for 3 h.
The APF-bowl could be obtained by washing the mixture with deionized
water and drying it at 100 °C for 6 h.
Preparation of APF&Au
Chips
The APF-sphere (10
mg) was dissolved in 10 mL of deionized water, followed by the addition
of 1.5/2.0/2.5 mL of HauCl4 aqueous solution (1%). The
mixture was stirred at 70 °C for 10 min and washed with deionized
water 5 times to obtain APF-sphere&MAu. The HAuCl4 aqueous solution (1%) supply of 2.0 mL resulted in the optimized
Au loading content of the APF-sphere&Au. Similar procedures were
conducted for getting the chips of APF-bowl&MAu. The formula for calculating M is as follows:M of 0.72/0.96/1.20 corresponds
to 1% HauCl4 aqueous solution usage of 1.5/2.0/2.5 mL,
respectively.
Characterization Methods
SEM images
and EDS were obtained
by a Hitachi S-4800 instrument (Hitachi, Japan). TEM images, HR TEM,
and SAED were recorded by the JEOL JEM-2100F instrument. In addition
to the EDS that was used to monitor the changing trend of Au content
(APF-bowl&0.72Au, APF-bowl&0.96Au, and APF-bowl&1.20Au),
TG analysis was further conducted to match calculated theoretical
content using a PerkinElmer TGA4000 instrument under air flow. The
ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) absorption spectra were
recorded by a UV2700 instrument (Shimadzu, Japan). The elemental mapping
characterizations were performed by a Talos F200X G2 apparatus. For
further illustrating the size-exclusive effect, the APF-bowl&0.96Au
submicroreactor was physically mixed with methionine (10 mg/mL) with
a volume ratio of 1/1 and incubated for 30 min. The residues after
centrifugation were redispersed in deionized water for analysis. The
XRD pattern was recorded by Rigaku D/Max 2500/PC. The XPS was obtained
from a KRATOS Axis UltraDLD apparatus by using Al ka (hl
1/4 1486.6 eV) as the excitation light source. The specific surface
area and N2 adsorption–desorption isotherms were
characterized by an ASAP 2460 Micropore Physisorption Analyzer. Solid-state 13C NMR spectra were measured on a Bruker Avance III 600 MHz
spectrometer with a 3.2 mm DVT MAS probe and a spinning rate of 20
kHz. The AFM was conducted on the Asylum MFP-3D by dropping the aqueous
solution of APF-bowl&MAu on the silica wafer.
Serum Sample Characteristics
A total of 243 serum samples
from ovarian cancer patients were collected from Renji Hospital, School
of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. All the patients were
diagnosed according to pathological examination and received the combined
chemotherapy of paclitaxel and carboplatin. The disease stage of each
ovarian cancer patient was obtained according to the standards of
International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2018
for ovarian cancer. There were 66 serum samples collected before chemotherapy,
47 serum samples collected after cycle 1 of chemotherapy (C1), 54 serum samples collected after cycle 2 of chemotherapy (C2), and 76 serum samples collected after cycle n (n ≥ 5) of chemotherapy (C). Each cycle represented the chemotherapy treatment of 21
days, according to clinical standards for cancer. The serum samples
were all harvested according to the established standards[62] and stored at −80 °C in the refrigerator
before use. This study was approved by the institutional ethics committees
of the Renji Hospital and School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai
Jiao Tong University (Ethic number of 2018-114). According to the
Helsinki Declaration, all individuals provided written informed consents
to participate in the study and approved the use of their biological
samples for analysis.
LDI MS Detection
In this study,
the LDI MS analysis
was conducted on the positive ion mode of MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry
(Bruker) equipped with both a Nd:YAG laser (2 kHz, 355 nm) and smart
beam system. The parameter settings included a repetition rate of
1 kHz, acceleration of 20 kV, a delay time of 150 ns, and laser shots
of 2000 per analysis. Notably, the accurate mass calibration within
±10 mDa was achieved by using standard small molecules. Typically,
1 μL of analyte solution was mixed with 1 μL of matrix
suspension for LDI MS detection. For the analyte solution, the standard
small metabolites (including valine, glucose, decanoic acid, glycyl-glycine,
uracil, and leucine) were dissolved in deionized water with the concentration
of 1 ng/nL; the serum samples were diluted with deionized water by
10 fold. For the protein tolerance, the BSA (5 mg/mL) was separately
mixed with methionine (1 ng/nL) and the mixture of typical small metabolites
(including valine, glycyl-glycine, and uracil, each at the concentration
of 1 ng/nL). For matrix suspension, the particles of APF-sphere&Au
and APF-bowl&Au were dispersed as the aqueous solution of 1 ng/nL.
In addition, the blank control, APF-sphere, and APF-bowl were prepared
with the same protocol as APF&Au chips for LDI MS.
Simulation
by Finite Element Method
We compared the
optical responses of APF&Au chips in terms of core structure (APF-sphere
and APF-bowl) and Au shell content using the finite element method
(FEM). The FEM within the Wave Optical Module of COMSOL Multiphysics
can solve the Holmholtz equation about the time-harmonic electric
field (E):where k0 is the
wave vector; εr = (n + ik)2 is the relative permittivity; μr = 1 is the relative permeability; and n and k are the real and imaginary parts
of the complex refractive index, respectively.[63] The refractive index of Au is modeled according to the
linear interpolation of experimental data from Johnson and Christy.
The refractive index of the APF was set as 1.555, and the refractive
index of the surrounding air could be set as 1. The size and morphology
of nanoparticles were characterized by electron microscopy characterizations.
The Au nanoparticle sizes of APF-sphere&Au and APF-bowl&MAu (M = 0.72/0.96/1.20) were set as 10 nm, ensuring the
validity of simulation results for comparison. The space of neighboring
Au nanoparticles was determined by their distribution on the APF-bowl/APF-sphere.
The uniform random distribution was adopted for Au nanoparticles in
APF-bowl/APF-sphere, consistent with the practical liquid reaction
system. The space between neighboring Au nanoparticles is around 25.8
nm (observed from the APF-bowl&0.72Au when the Au nanoparticles
were of uniform distribution). A plane incident light wave at 355
nm was set along the negative z-axis and polarized
along the x-axis with an amplitude of 1 V/m, according
to the laser wavelength equipped in LDI MS. The calculated region
was surrounded by a perfectly matched layer (PML) with a spherical
shape. The relationship between electric field intensity (I) and electric field (E) is
Machine Learning-Assisted Chemotherapy Monitoring
Four
machine learning algorithms were applied to the previously extracted
SMFs, including three for linear modeling and one for nonlinear modeling.
For linear modeling, elastic net,[64] the
least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO),[65] and partial least-squares (PLS) regression[66] were included. From the aspect of sparsity analysis,
elastic net was regularized from logistic regression with l1-norm and the squared l2-norm:and LASSO with l1-norm was obtained by
the following formula:where λ1 ≥ 0 and λ2 ≥
0 control L1 and L2 regularization, n is the sample
number, X is the matrix for SMFs, and Y is
the vector for clinical outcomes of interest (e.g., “0” for patients before chemotherapy
and “1” for patients in cycle 1). In the aspect of multicollinearity
analysis, PLS regression with latent variables projection was included.
The PLS formula that we used is as follows:where P and Q are
the loading matrix, T and U are the projections
of X and Y, and E and F are the residual matrices, respectively. The decomposition
of X and Y are trained to maximize the covariance
between T and U. For nonlinear modeling,
decision tree[67] with cascaded if–then–else
rules was compared, and we solved the overfitting problem by optimizing
the minimum number of samples required to be at a leaf node. The best
minimum number was tuned from 1 to 50 with a step of 1. All classification
algorithms were trained by a 5-fold cross-validation strategy and
ran under the same environment (python 3.7.4 and scikit-learn 0.23.2).
The PLS, LASSO, and EN were for differentiating the before the chemotherapy
from the C1 group, C2 group, and C group, respectively, considering the diagnostic
performance in both training and test sets. In addition, as a sufficient
sample number is critical to building a robust machine learning model,
the power analysis can be conducted via Metaboanalyst[48] to evaluate the sample size. The threshold of
predicted power can be set as 0.8 according to previous literature
reports.[55]
Potential Biomarker Identification
The potential biomarker
was identified according to the established procedures. First, the
SMFs of 295 m/z signals were obtained
by preprocessing of the original MS spectra with ∼12 000
data points. Then, the specific m/z signals, which showed significant differences between patients before
and after chemotherapy, were screened out for further analysis. Importantly,
the potential biomarkers corresponding to the specific m/z signals could be identified by accurate mass
measurements and alignment with the human metabolite database (https://hmdb.ca/). The six metabolic
biomarkers are hydroxybutyric acid, maleic acid, d-cysteine,
N-acetylasparagine, 3-hydroxy-2-methylpyridine-4,5-dicarboxylate,
and dihydroneopterin phosphate.
Statistical Analysis
One-way ANOVA analysis[68] was conducted
for comparing the detection performance
of APF&Au chips in small-molecule detection and total ion count
(TIC) in a representative serum sample. The TIC can be calculated
as the summation of intensities in the mass spectrum. Specifically,
the APF&Au chips, including APF-sphere&Au, APF-bowl&0.72Au,
APF-bowl&0.96Au, and APF-bowl&1.20Au, were applied for small-molecule
detection with three independent experiments conducted. The t test was used for screening out the potential biomarkers
between ovarian cancer patients before chemotherapy and after chemotherapy,
involving five independent MS spectra for each serum sample.
Authors: Kimberly D Miller; Leticia Nogueira; Angela B Mariotto; Julia H Rowland; K Robin Yabroff; Catherine M Alfano; Ahmedin Jemal; Joan L Kramer; Rebecca L Siegel Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dennis J Slamon; Patrick Neven; Stephen Chia; Peter A Fasching; Michelino De Laurentiis; Seock-Ah Im; Katarina Petrakova; Giulia V Bianchi; Francisco J Esteva; Miguel Martín; Arnd Nusch; Gabe S Sonke; Luis De la Cruz-Merino; J Thaddeus Beck; Xavier Pivot; Manu Sondhi; Yingbo Wang; Arunava Chakravartty; Karen Rodriguez-Lorenc; Tetiana Taran; Guy Jerusalem Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacobus Pfisterer; Catherine M Shannon; Klaus Baumann; Joern Rau; Philipp Harter; Florence Joly; Jalid Sehouli; Ulrich Canzler; Barbara Schmalfeldt; Andrew P Dean; Alexander Hein; Alain G Zeimet; Lars C Hanker; Thierry Petit; Frederik Marmé; Ahmed El-Balat; Rosalind Glasspool; Nikolaus de Gregorio; Sven Mahner; Tarek M Meniawy; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier; Cristina Costan; Werner Meier; Alexander Reinthaller; Jeffrey C Goh; Tifenn L'Haridon; Sally Baron Hay; Stefan Kommoss; Andreas du Bois; Jean-Emmanuel Kurtz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 41.316