4.7 Article

Development of Urinary Pseudotargeted LC-MS-Based Metabolomics Method and Its Application in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Biomarker Discovery

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 906-916

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr500973d

关键词

pseudotargeted method; LC-MS; metabolomics; urine; cirrhosis; hepatocellular; carcinoma

资金

  1. State Key Science & Technology Project for Infectious Diseases [2012ZX10002011]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21321064]
  3. [81372862]
  4. [21375127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the pestilent malignancies leading to cancer-related death. Discovering effective biomarkers for HCC diagnosis is an urgent demand. To identify potential metabolite biomarkers, we developed a urinary pseudotargeted method based on liquid chromatography-hybrid triple quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometry (LC-QTRAP MS). Compared with nontargeted method, the pseudotargeted method can achieve better data quality, which benefits differential metabolites discovery. The established method was applied to cirrhosis (CIR) and HCC investigation. It was found that urinary nucleosides, bile acids, citric acid, and several amino acids were significantly changed in liver disease groups compared with the controls, featuring the dysregulation of purine metabolism, energy metabolism, and amino metabolism in liver diseases. Furthermore, some metabolites such as cyclic adenosine monophosphate, glutamine, and short- and medium-chain acylcarnitines were the differential metabolites of HCC and CIR. On the basis of binary logistic regression, butyrylcarnitine (carnitine C4:0) and hydantoin-5-propionic acid were defined as combinational markers to distinguish HCC from CIR. The area under curve was 0.786 and 0.773 for discovery stage and validation stage samples, respectively. These data show that the established pseudotargeted method is a complementary one of targeted and nontargeted methods for metabolomics study.

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