4.1 Article

Screening for potential serum-based proteomic biomarkers for human type 2 diabetes mellitus using MALDI-TOF MS

期刊

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 11, 期 3-4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201600079

关键词

MALDI-TOF MS; Predictive models; Serum peptide biomarkers; Type 2 diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [2012BAI37B03, 81273170, 81370083, 81573215]
  2. Australia- China International Collaborative [NH&MRC-APP1112767-NSFC81561128020]
  3. Edith Cowan University Enhance Collaborative and Strategic Research [SRF 2015-2016]
  4. Beijing Nova Program [Z141107001814058]
  5. Importation and Development of High-Calibre Talents Project of Beijing Municipal Institutions [CITTCD201404185]
  6. China Scholarship Council [CSC- 2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex, pandemic disease contributing towards the global burden of health issues. To date, there are no simple clinical tests for the early detection of T2DM. Method: To identify potential peptide biomarkers for such applications, 406 sera of T2DM patients (n = 206) and healthy controls (n = 200) are analyzed by using MALDI-TOF MS with a cross-sectional case-control design. Result: Six peptides (peaks m/z 1452.9, 1692.8, 1946.0, 2115.1, 2211.0 and 4053.6) are identified as candidate biomarkers for T2DM. A diagnostic model constructed with six peptides is able to discriminate T2DM patients from healthy controls, with an accuracy of 82.20%, sensitivity of 82.50%, and specificity of 77.80% in the validation set. Peptide peaks m/z 1452.9 and 1692.8 are identified as fragments of the complement C3f, while peptide peaks m/z 1946.0, 2115.1, and 2211.0 are identified as the fragments of kininogen 1 isoform 1 precursor. Conclusion: This study reinforces proteomic analyses as a potential technique for defining significant clinical peptide biomarkers, providing a simple and convenient diagnostic model for T2DM in clinical examination.

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