4.7 Article

Glycoproteomic Analysis of Malignant Ovarian Cancer Ascites Fluid Identifies Unusual Glycopeptides

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 3358-3376

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00548

关键词

ovarian cancer; malignant ascites; glycoproteomics; N-glycans; proteomics; glycopeptides; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation award
  2. NIH [R01 GM049077]
  3. Ovarian Cancer Education and Research Network (OCERN)
  4. UC Davis Cancer Center for ovarian cancer research projects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ovarian cancer is a major cause of cancer mortality among women, largely due to late diagnosis of advanced metastatic disease. More extensive molecular analysis of metastatic ovarian cancer is needed to identify post-translational modifications of proteins, especially glycosylation that is particularly associated with metastatic disease to better understand the metastatic process and identify potential therapeutic targets. Glycoproteins in ascites fluid were enriched by affinity binding to lectins (ConA or WGA) and other affinity matrices. Separate glycomic, proteomic, and glycopeptide analyses were performed. Relative abundances of different N-glycan groups and proteins were identified from ascites fluids and a serum control. Levels of biomarkers CA125, MUC1, and fibronectin were also monitored in OC ascites samples by Western blot analysis. N-Glycan analysis of ascites fluids showed the presence of large, highly fucosylated and sialylated complex and hybrid glycans, some of which were not observed in normal serum. OC ascites glycoproteins, haptoglobin, fibronectin, lumican, fibulin, hemopexin, ceruloplasmin, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and alpha-1-antichymotrypsin were more abundant in OC ascites or not present in serum control samples. Further glycopeptide analysis of OC ascites identified Nand O-glycans in clusterin, hemopexin, and fibulin glycopeptides, some of which are unusual and may be important in OC metastasis.

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