| Literature DB >> 35736483 |
Oiana Telleria1, Oihane E Alboniga2, Marc Clos-Garcia3, Beatriz Nafría-Jimenez4, Joaquin Cubiella5, Luis Bujanda6, Juan Manuel Falcón-Pérez1,2,7.
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) still relies on invasive colonoscopy. Noninvasive methods are less sensitive in detecting the disease, particularly in the early stage. In the current work, a metabolomics analysis of fecal samples was carried out by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (UPLC-MS/MS). A total of 1380 metabolites were analyzed in a cohort of 120 fecal samples from patients with normal colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC. Multivariate analysis revealed that metabolic profiles of CRC and AA patients were similar and could be clearly separated from control individuals. Among the 25 significant metabolites, sphingomyelins (SM), lactosylceramides (LacCer), secondary bile acids, polypeptides, formiminoglutamate, heme and cytidine-containing pyrimidines were found to be dysregulated in CRC patients. Supervised random forest (RF) and logistic regression algorithms were employed to build a CRC accurate predicted model consisting of the combination of hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin E,E, lactosyl-N-palmitoyl-sphingosine, glycocholenate sulfate and STLVT with an accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 91.67% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.7753-0.9825), 0.7 and 1, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; colorectal cancer; faecal samples; untargeted metabolomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35736483 PMCID: PMC9229737 DOI: 10.3390/metabo12060550
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Figure 1Two-dimensional principal component analysis plot for all fecal samples color-coded by group (grey—control group; purple—AA; and green—CRC) (A). Top 30 metabolites’ biochemical importance plot performed by RF classification-method analysis for control + AA vs. CRC. The plot shows each variable on the Y-axis and their importance on the X-axis (B). * indicates the compound has not been confirmed based on standard, but highly confident on its identification, and ** standard was not available and reasonably confident on its identification.
Significant metabolites obtained by Welch’s two-sample t-test followed by FDR (q-values ≤ 0.05), and fold-change heatmap, which indicates the ratio of the mean scaled intensity for each metabolite for the comparisons AA vs. Control (C), CRC vs. C, AA + CRC vs. C, CRC vs. AA, and C + AA vs. CRC. Red cells indicate that the mean values are significantly higher (upregulated) and green cells indicate the mean values are significantly lower (downregulated). MSI indicates the identification confidence level and C is the abbreviation of control group.
| Pathway | Biochemical Name | AA vs. C | CRC vs. C | AA + CRC vs. C | CRC vs. AA | C + AA vs. CRC | MSI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold Change | Fold Change | Fold Change | Fold Change | Fold Change | ||||||||
| AMINO ACID | ||||||||||||
| Histidine Metabolism | formiminoglutamate | 0.92 | 0.709 |
| 0.0817 | 1.47 | 0.5331 |
| 0.0089 |
| 0.0064 | 1 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Polypeptide | val-val-ala | 0.51 | 0.731 |
| 0.0705 | 1.27 | 0.4626 |
| 0.0076 |
| 0.0064 | 1 |
| STVLT | 0.46 | 0.8245 |
| 0.0065 |
| 0.241 |
| 0.0019 |
| 0.0022 | 1 | |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Fatty Acid, Dicarboxylate | 3-carboxy-4-methyl-5-propyl-2-furanpropanoate | 1.3 | 0.7987 |
| 0.0339 |
| 0.2488 |
| 0.1472 |
| 0.0233 | 1 |
| Fatty Acid Metabolism | eicosenoylcarnitine (C20:1) | 0.73 | 0.6723 |
| 0.0063 |
| 0.241 | 0.57 | 0.7251 |
| 0.0274 | 2 |
| Diacylglycerol | oleoyl-arachidonoyl-glycerol (18:1/20:4) [ | 0.75 | 0.8245 |
| 0.0065 |
| 0.241 |
| 0.0017 |
| 0.0015 | 2 |
| Ceramide | ceramide (d18:2/24:1, d18:1/24:2) | 0.65 | 0.7016 |
| 0.0771 | 1.28 | 0.5331 |
| 0.0004 |
| 0.001 | 2 |
| LacCer | lactosyl-N-palmitoyl-sphingosine (d18:1/16:0) (LacCer 34:1) | 0.53 | 0.731 |
| 0.0631 | 1.8 | 0.4776 |
| 0.0013 |
| 0.0016 | 1 |
| lactosyl-N-nervonoyl-sphingosine (d18:1/24:1) (LacCer 42:3) | 0.42 | 0.6788 |
| 0.1213 | 1.78 | 0.5463 |
| 0.0016 |
| 0.0041 | 2 | |
| Sphingomyelin (SM) | palmitoyl sphingomyelin (d18:1/16:0) (SM 34:1) | 0.59 | 0.7225 |
| 0.0309 | 1.45 | 0.4556 |
| 0.001 |
| 0.001 | 1 |
| behenoyl sphingomyelin (d18:1/22:0) (SM 40:1) | 0.56 | 0.6788 |
| 0.1068 | 1.3 | 0.5332 |
| 0.0021 |
| 0.005 | 2 | |
| SM (d17:1/16:0, d18:1/15:0, d16:1/17:0) | 0.52 | 0.6965 |
| 0.1643 | 1.2 | 0.5332 |
| 0.008 |
| 0.0233 | 2 | |
| SM (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1) (SM 34:2) | 0.64 | 0.7359 |
| 0.0017 |
| 0.241 |
| 0.0001 |
| 0.0002 | 2 | |
| SM (d18:1/20:0, d16:1/22:0) (SM 38:1) | 0.45 | 0.7339 |
| 0.0779 | 1.04 | 0.461 |
| 0.0033 |
| 0.0064 | 2 | |
| SM (d18:1/24:1, d18:2/24:0) (SM 42:2) | 0.5 | 0.7186 |
| 0.0039 |
| 0.3232 |
| 0.00007 |
| 0.00008 | 2 | |
| SM (d18:2/24:1, d18:1/24:2) (SM 42:3) | 0.59 | 0.7359 |
| 0.0017 |
| 0.241 |
| 0.0001 |
| 0.0002 | 2 | |
| Secondary Bile Acid Metabolism | glycolithocholate sulfate | 2.05 | 0.731 |
| 0.1213 | 1.17 | 0.5439 |
| 0.0332 |
| 0.0071 | 2 |
| glycocholenate sulfate | 0.4 | 0.8598 |
| 0.1643 | 0.25 | 0.472 |
| 0.2052 |
| 0.0398 | 2 | |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Pyrimidine Metabolism | cytidine | 0.93 | 0.7359 |
| 0.0417 |
| 0.2488 |
| 0.3399 |
| 0.0398 | 1 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Hemoglobin and Porphyrin Metabolism | heme | 0.33 | 0.7604 |
| 0.0088 |
| 0.2885 |
| 0.0008 |
| 0.0011 | 1 |
| bilirubin (Z,Z) | 0.52 | 0.7484 |
| 0.0813 |
| 0.3114 |
| 0.3557 |
| 0.0457 | 1 | |
| bilirubin (E,E) | 0.77 | 0.7849 |
| 0.1589 | 0.48 | 0.5331 |
| 0.0497 |
| 0.0105 | 2 | |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Xanthine Metabolism | 3,7-dimethylurate | 1.18 | 0.8245 |
| 0.125 | 0.8 | 0.461 |
| 0.1135 |
| 0.0398 | 1 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| PCM | bilirubin degradation product, C16H18N2O5 (2) | 0.91 | 0.7329 |
| 0.0219 |
| 0.2488 |
| 0.2451 |
| 0.0064 | 3 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| N/A | X-11787 | 1.28 | 0.8318 |
| 0.0065 |
| 0.241 |
| 0.0127 |
| 0.0027 | 4 |
Figure 2ROC curve of predictive model using logistic regression with Hgb and predicted metabolites.