4.1 Article

Differential expression of proteomics models of colorectal cancer, colorectal benign disease and healthy controls

期刊

PROTEOME SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1477-5956-8-16

关键词

-

资金

  1. Harbin Science and Technology Bureau, People's Republic of China [2009RFLXS002]
  2. National Natural Science Fund, People's Republic of China [30973427]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is often diagnosed at a late stage with concomitant poor prognosis. The hypersensitive analytical technique of proteomics can detect molecular changes before the tumor is palpable. The surface-enhanced laser desorption/ ionization-time of flight-mass spectra (SELDI-TOF-MS) is a newly-developed technique of evaluating protein separation in recent years. The protein chips have established the expression of tumor protein in the serum specimens and become the newly discovered markers for tumor diagnosis. The objective of this study was to find new markers of the diagnosis among groups of CRC, colorectal benign diseases (CBD) and healthy controls. The assay of SELDI-TOF-MS with analytical technique of protein-chip bioinformatics was used to detect the expression of protein mass peaks in the sera of patients or controls. One hundred serum samples, including 52 cases of colorectal cancer, 27 cases of colorectal benign disease, and 21 cases of healthy controls, were examined by SELDI-TOF-MS with WCX2 protein-chips. Results: The diagnostic models (I, II and III) were setup by analyzed the data and sieved markers using Ciphergen Protein- Chip-Software 5.1. These models were combined with 3 protein mass peaks to discriminate CRC, CBD, and healthy controls. The accuracy, the sensitivity and the particularity of cross verification of these models are all highly over 80%. Conclusions: The SELDI-TOF-MS is a useful tool to help diagnose colorectal cancer, especially during the early stage. However, identification of the significantly differentiated proteins needs further 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

4.1
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