4.3 Article

Cancer metabolism: the volatile signature of glycolysis-in vitro model in lung cancer cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF BREATH RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1752-7163/aa51d6

Keywords

hyperglycolysis; cancer metabolism; lung cancer; volatile organic compounds (VOCs); glycolysis inhibition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Discovering the volatile signature of cancer cells is an emerging approach in cancer research, as it may contribute to a fast and simple diagnosis of tumors in vivo and in vitro. One of the main contributors to such a volatile signature is hyperglycolysis, which characterizes the cancerous cell. The metabolic perturbation in cancer cells is known as the Warburg effect; glycolysis is preferred over oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), even in the presence of oxygen. The precise mitochondrial alterations that underlie the increased dependence of cancer cells on aerobic glycolysis for energy generation have remained a mystery. We aimed to profile the volatile signature of the glycolysis activity in lung cancer cells. For that an in vitro model, using lung cancer cell line cultures (A549, H2030, H358, H322), was developed. The volatile signature was measured by proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry under normal conditions and glycolysis inhibition. Glycolysis inhibition and mitochondrial activity were also assessed by mitochondrial respiration capacity measurements. Cells were divided into two groups upon their glycolytic profile (PET positive and PET negative). Glycolysis blockade had a unique characteristic that was shared by all cells. Furthermore, each group had a characteristic volatile signature that enabled us to discriminate between those sub-groups of cells. In conclusion, lung cancer cells may have different subpopulations of cells upon low and high mitochondrial capacity. In both groups, glycolysis blockade induced a unique volatile signature.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available