4.6 Article

Plasma Lipid Profile Reveals Plasmalogens as Potential Biomarkers for Colon Cancer Screening

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo10060262

关键词

colon cancer; biomarkers; lipidomic; mass spectrometry; plasmalogens

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2018/13317-6, 2017/25017-4]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-(CAPES -Brasil) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this era of precision medicine, there is an increasingly urgent need for highly sensitive tests for detecting tumors such as colon cancer (CC), a silent disease where the first symptoms may take 10-15 years to appear. Mass spectrometry-based lipidomics is an emerging tool for such clinical diagnosis. We used ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry operating in high energy collision spectral acquisition mode (MSE) mode (UPLC-QTOF-MSE) and gas chromatography (GC) to investigate differences between the plasmatic lipidic composition of CC patients and control (CTR) subjects. Key enzymes in lipidic metabolism were investigated using immuno-based detection assays. Our partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) resulted in a suitable discrimination between CTR and CC plasma samples. Forty-two statistically significant discriminating lipids were putatively identified. Ether lipids showed a prominent presence and accordingly, a decrease in glyceronephosphate O-acyltransferase (GNPAT) enzyme activity was found. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve built for three plasmalogens of phosphatidylserine (PS), named PS(P-36:1), PS(P-38:3) and PS(P-40:5), presented an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.998, and sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 85.7% respectively. These results show significant differences in CC patients' plasma lipid composition that may be useful in discriminating them from CTR individuals with a special role for plasmalogens.

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

4.6
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