4.5 Article

Lipidomic profiling of extracellular vesicles derived from prostate and prostate cancer cell lines

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12944-018-0854-x

关键词

Extracellular vesicles; Lipidomics; Prostate cancer

资金

  1. CFMEU Northern Mining & Energy District
  2. Rotary Club of Paterson through the Hunter Medical Research Institute
  3. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  4. MM Sawyer Estate Postgraduate Research Scholarship through the Hunter Medical Research Institute, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are produced and secreted from most cells of the body and can be recovered in biological fluids. Although there has been extensive characterisation of the protein and nucleic acid component of EVs, their lipidome has received little attention and may represent a unique and untapped source of biomarkers for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Methods: EVs were isolated from non-tumourigenic (RWPE1), tumourigenic (NB26) and metastatic (PC-3) prostate cell lines. Lipids were extracted and subsequently used for targeted lipidomics analysis for the quantitation of molecular lipid species. Results: A total of 187 molecular lipid species were quantitatively identified in EV samples showing differential abundance between RWPE1, NB26 and PC-3 EV samples. Fatty acids, glycerolipids and prenol lipids were more highly abundant in EVs from non-tumourigenic cells, whereas sterol lipids, sphingolipids and glycerophospholipids were more highly abundant in EVs from tumourigenic or metastatic cells. Conclusions: This study identified differences in the molecular lipid species of prostate cell-derived EVs, increasing our understanding of the changes that occur to the EV lipidome during prostate cancer progression. These differences highlight the importance of characterising the EV lipidome, which may lead to improved diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer.

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

4.5
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