4.3 Article

Increased cathepsin D protein expression is a biomarker for osteosarcomas, pulmonary metastases and other bone malignancies

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 6, 期 18, 页码 16517-16526

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.4140

关键词

osteosarcoma; bone malignancies; two-dimensional gel electrophoresis; CTSD; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Werner and Clara Kreitz Foundation
  2. Ad Infinitum Foundation
  3. German Cancer Aid Foundation [108446]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer proteomics provide a powerful approach to identify biomarkers for personalized medicine. Particularly, biomarkers for early detection, prognosis and therapeutic intervention of bone cancers, especially osteosarcomas, are missing. Initially, we compared two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE)-based protein expression pattern between cell lines of fetal osteoblasts, osteosarcoma and pulmonary metastasis derived from osteosarcoma. Two independent statistical analyses by means of PDQuest (R) and SameSpot (R) software revealed a common set of 34 differentially expressed protein spots (p < 0.05). 17 Proteins were identified by mass spectrometry and subjected to Ingenuity Pathway Analysis resulting in one high-ranked network associated with Gene Expression, Cell Death and Cell-To-Cell Signaling and Interaction. Ran/TC4-binding protein (RANBP1) and Cathepsin D (CTSD) were further validated by Western Blot in cell lines while the latter one showed higher expression differences also in cytospins and in clinical samples using tissue microarrays comprising osteosarcomas, metastases, other bone malignancies, and control tissues. The results show that protein expression patterns distinguish fetal osteoblasts from osteosarcomas, pulmonary metastases, and other bone diseases with relevant sensitivities between 55.56% and 100% at >= 87.50% specificity. Particularly, CTSD was validated in clinical material and could thus serve as a new biomarker for bone malignancies and potentially guide individualized treatment regimes.

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

4.3
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