Yinan Chen1, Lei Hu2, Hexin Lin3, Huangdao Yu1, Jun You4. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361000, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, The First Affliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, China. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350000, China. 4. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361000, China. youjunxm@163.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The incidence of adenocarcinoma in the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has increased in the recent years. AEG is reported to have a worse prognosis compared with tumor confined to the stomach (non-AEG). Although the metabolic changes of non-AEG have been investigated in extensive studies, little effort focused on the metabolic profiling of AEG serum. OBJECTIVES: Here we report an untargeted gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method to explore the abnormal metabolism underlying AEG. METHODS: GC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics approach combined with multivariate statistical analyses were used to study the metabolic profiling of serum samples from AEG patients (n = 70), non-AEG patients (n = 70) and health controls (n = 71). RESULTS: A novel serum metabolic profiling of 18 metabolites from patients of AEG and non-AEG was indicated, in comparison with health controls. Moreover, AEG and non-AEG were also well-classified with 9 distinguishing metabolites including hypoxanthine, alanine, proline, pyroglutamate, glycine, lactate, succinic acid, glutamate and kynurenine, which produced a discriminatory model with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.852, suggesting a distinct metabolic signature of AEG. Importantly, lactate and glutamate disclosed outcome-prediction values by multivariate cox-proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method based on follow-up information for 2-5 years. CONCLUSION: This is the first metabolomics study to identify serum metabolic signature of AEG. The distinguishing metabolites show a promising application on clinical diagnose and outcome prediction, and allow us to unveil several key metabolic variations coexisting in AEG, which may aid to understand the underlying metabolic mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION: The incidence of adenocarcinoma in the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has increased in the recent years. AEG is reported to have a worse prognosis compared with tumor confined to the stomach (non-AEG). Although the metabolic changes of non-AEG have been investigated in extensive studies, little effort focused on the metabolic profiling of AEG serum. OBJECTIVES: Here we report an untargeted gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method to explore the abnormal metabolism underlying AEG. METHODS: GC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics approach combined with multivariate statistical analyses were used to study the metabolic profiling of serum samples from AEG patients (n = 70), non-AEG patients (n = 70) and health controls (n = 71). RESULTS: A novel serum metabolic profiling of 18 metabolites from patients of AEG and non-AEG was indicated, in comparison with health controls. Moreover, AEG and non-AEG were also well-classified with 9 distinguishing metabolites including hypoxanthine, alanine, proline, pyroglutamate, glycine, lactate, succinic acid, glutamate and kynurenine, which produced a discriminatory model with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.852, suggesting a distinct metabolic signature of AEG. Importantly, lactate and glutamate disclosed outcome-prediction values by multivariate cox-proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method based on follow-up information for 2-5 years. CONCLUSION: This is the first metabolomics study to identify serum metabolic signature of AEG. The distinguishing metabolites show a promising application on clinical diagnose and outcome prediction, and allow us to unveil several key metabolic variations coexisting in AEG, which may aid to understand the underlying metabolic mechanisms.
Authors: Warwick B Dunn; David I Broadhurst; Helen J Atherton; Royston Goodacre; Julian L Griffin Journal: Chem Soc Rev Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 54.564
Authors: Pavel Gromov; Irina Gromova; Esbern Friis; Vera Timmermans-Wielenga; Fritz Rank; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; José M A Moreira Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Maria T Grinde; Bylgja Hilmarsdottir; Hanna Maja Tunset; Ida Marie Henriksen; Jana Kim; Mads H Haugen; Morten Beck Rye; Gunhild M Mælandsmo; Siver A Moestue Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Nurul Azmir Amir Hashim; Sharaniza Ab-Rahim; Wan Zurinah Wan Ngah; Sheila Nathan; Nurul Syakima Ab Mutalib; Ismail Sagap; A Rahman A Jamal; Musalmah Mazlan Journal: Bioimpacts Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Angela W Chan; Pascal Mercier; Daniel Schiller; Robert Bailey; Sarah Robbins; Dean T Eurich; Michael B Sawyer; David Broadhurst Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 7.640