4.7 Article

Detection of mitochondrial DNA mutations in circulating mitochondria-originated extracellular vesicles for potential diagnostic applications in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22006-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of South Alabama-Mitchell Cancer Institute
  2. NCI/NIH [R01CA224306-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in circulating extracellular vesicles (EVs) can be used for reliable diagnosis of early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
There is a complete lack of highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for early pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) diagnosis, limiting multi-modal therapeutic options. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is an excellent resource for biomarker discovery because of its high copy number and increased mutational frequency in cancer cells. We examined if mtDNA mutations can be detected in circulating extracellular vesicles (EVs) of PDAC patients and used for discerning between cancer and non-cancer subjects. A greater yield of circulating EVs (similar to 1.4 fold; p= 0.002) was obtained in PDAC patients (n = 20) than non-cancer (NC) individuals (n =10). PDAC-EVs contained a higher quantity of total DNA (similar to 5.5 folds; p= 0.0001) than NC-EVs and had greater enrichment of mtDNA (similar to 14.02-fold; p = 0.0001). PDAC-EVs also had higher levels of cardiolipin (a mitochondrial inner-membrane phospholipid), suggestive of their mitochondrial origin. All mtDNA mutations in PDAC-EVs were unique and frequency was remarkably higher. Most mtDNA mutations (41.5%) in PDAC-EVs were in the respiratory complex-I (RCI) (ND1-ND6), followed by the RCIII gene (CYTB; 11.2%). Among the non-coding genes, D-Loop and RNR2 exhibited the most mutations (15.2% each). Altogether, our study establishes, for the first time, that mtDNA mutations can be detected in circulating EVs and potentially serve as a tool for reliable PDAC diagnosis.

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