4.6 Article

Identifying FGA Peptides as Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma-Associated Biomarkers by Magnetic Beads

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 113, 期 7, 页码 2268-2278

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.24097

关键词

SERUM BIOMARKER; NASOPHARYNGEAL CARCINOMA; FGA; MAGNETIC BEAD

资金

  1. Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China [2006AA02Z4B4]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30770641, 31170805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early diagnosis and treatment is known to improve prognosis for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The study determined the specific peptide profiles by comparing the serum differences between NPC patients and healthy controls, and provided the basis for the diagnostic model and identification of specific biomarkers of NPC. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) can be used to detect the molecular mass of peptides. Mass spectra of peptides were generated after extracting and purification of 40 NPC samples in the training set, 21 in the single center validation set and 99 in the multicenter validation set using weak cationic-exchanger magnetic beads. The spectra were analyzed statistically using FlexAnalysis (TM) and ClinProt (TM) bioinformatics software. The four most significant peaks were selected out to train a genetic algorithm model to diagnose NPC. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 1000/o and 1000/o in the training set, 90.5% and 88.9% in the single center validation set, 91.90/o and 83.3% in the multicenter validation set, and the false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR) were obviously lower in the NPC group (FPR, 16.7%; FNR, 8.10/o) than in the other cancer group (FPR, 39%; FNR, 61%), respectively. So, the diagnostic model including four peptides can be suitable for NPC but not for other cancers. FGA peptide fragments identified may serve as tumor-associated biomarkers for NPC. J. Cell. Biochem. 113: 2268-2278, 2012. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据