4.7 Article

Protein Expression Changes in Ovarian Cancer during the Transition from Benign to Malignant

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 2876-2889

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr201258q

关键词

epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC); biomarker; proteomics; mass spectrometry; iTRAQ; multiple reaction monitoring (MRM); selected reaction monitoring (SRM); Ingenuity pathway analysis

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A_130530]
  2. European Research Council [ERC-2008-AdG- 233226]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_130530] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epithelial ovarian carcinoma has in general a poor prognosis since the vast majority of tumors are genomically unstable and clinically highly aggressive. This results in rapid progression of malignancy potential while still asymptomatic and thus in late diagnosis. It is therefore of critical importance to develop methods to diagnose epithelial ovarian carcinoma at its earliest developmental stage, that is, to differentiate between benign tissue and its early malignant transformed counterparts. Here we present a shotgun quantitative proteomic screen of benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors using iTRAQ technology with LC-MALDI-TOF/TOF and LC-ESI-QTOF MS/MS. Pathway analysis of the shotgun data pointed to the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway as a significant discriminatory pathway. Selected candidate proteins from the shotgun screen were further confirmed in SI individual tissue samples of normal, benign, borderline or malignant origin using LC-MRM analysis. The MRM profile demonstrated significant differences between the four groups separating the normal tissue samples from all tumor groups as well as perfectly separating the benign and malignant tumors with a ROC-area of 1. This work demonstrates the utility of using a shotgun approach to filter out a signature of a few proteins only that discriminates between the different sample groups.

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

4.7
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