4.7 Article

Combined proteome and transcriptome analyses for the discovery of urinary biomarkers for urothelial carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 108, Issue 9, Pages 1854-1861

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.157

Keywords

bladder cancer; biomarker; urine; midkine; secretome

Categories

Funding

  1. Birmingham Science City
  2. Cancer Research UK
  3. University of Birmingham
  4. Birmingham and Black Country Comprehensive Local Research Network
  5. West Midlands North and South Comprehensive Local Research Network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Proteomic discovery of cancer biomarkers in body fluids is challenging because of their low abundance in a complex background. Altered gene expression in tumours may not reflect protein levels in body fluids. We have tested combining gene expression profiling of tumours with proteomic analysis of cancer cell line secretomes as a strategy to discover urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer. Methods: We used shotgun proteomics to identify proteins secreted by three bladder cancer cell lines. Secreted proteins with high mRNA levels in bladder tumours relative to normal urothelium were assayed by ELISA in urine samples from 642 patients. Results: Midkine and HAI-1 were significantly increased in bladder cancer patients, with the highest levels in invasive disease (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.89 vs non-cancer). The urinary concentration of both proteins was too high to be explained by bladder cancer associated haematuria and most likely arises by direct tumour secretion. Conclusions: This 'dual-omic' strategy identified tumour secreted proteins whose urine concentrations are increased significantly by bladder cancer. Combined secretome-transcriptome analysis may be more useful than direct proteomic analysis of body fluids for biomarker discovery in both bladder cancer and other tumour types.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available