4.5 Article

An Assessment of the Utility of Tissue Smears in Rapid Cancer Profiling with Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (DESI-MS)

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13361-016-1506-x

Keywords

DESI-MS; Tumor smear; MS profiling; DESI-MS imaging; Breast cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mass spectrometry imaging with desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (DESI-MS) is used to characterize cancer from ex vivo slices of tissues. The process is time-consuming. The use of tissue smears for DESI-MS analysis has been proposed as it eliminates the time required to snap-freeze and section the tissue. To assess the utility of tissue smears for rapid cancer characterization, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to evaluate the concordance between DESI-MS profiles of breast cancer from tissue slices and smears prepared on various surfaces. PCA suggested no statistical discrimination between DESI-MS profiles of tissue sections and tissue smears prepared on glass, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and porous PTFE. However, the abundances of cancer biomarker ions varied between sections and smears, with DESI-MS analysis of tissue sections yielding higher ion abundances of cancer biomarkers compared with smears. Coefficient of variance (CV) analysis suggests DESI-MS profiles from tissue smears are as reproducible as the ones from tissue sections. The limit of detection with smear samples from single pixel analysis is comparable to tissue sections that average the signal from a tissue area of 0.01 mm(2). The smears prepared on the PTFE surface possessed a higher degree of homogeneity compared with the smears prepared on the glass surface. This allowed single MS scans (similar to 1 s) from random positions across the surface of the smear to be used in rapid cancer typing with good reproducibility, providing pathologic information for cancer typing at speeds suitable for clinical utility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available