4.7 Article

Facile preparation of salivary extracellular vesicles for cancer proteomics

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep24669

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21035004, 21275099, 21305087, 81302005, 21475086]
  2. National Key Development of Scientific Instruments [2011YQ030139]
  3. Shanghai Jiao Tong University [YG2010ZD209, YG2013MS10, YG2014QN21, YG2015MS48]
  4. Recruitment Program of Global Youth Experts of China
  5. National High-tech R&D Program of China (863 Program) [2014AA020545]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are membrane surrounded structures released by cells, which have been increasingly recognized as mediators of intercellular communication. Recent reports indicate that EVs participate in important biological processes and could serve as potential source for cancer biomarkers. As an attractive EVs source with merit of non-invasiveness, human saliva is a unique medium for clinical diagnostics. Thus, we proposed a facile approach to prepare salivary extracellular vesicles (SEVs). Affinity chromatography column combined with filter system (ACCF) was developed to efficiently remove the high abundant proteins and viscous interferences of saliva. Protein profiling in the SEVs obtained by this strategy was compared with conventional centrifugation method, which demonstrated that about 70% more SEVs proteins could be revealed. To explore its utility for cancer proteomics, we analyzed the proteome of SEVs in lung cancer patients and normal controls. Shotgun proteomic analysis illustrated that 113 and 95 proteins have been identified in cancer group and control group, respectively. Among those 63 proteins that have been consistently discovered only in cancer group, 12 proteins are lung cancer related. Our results demonstrated that SEVs prepared through the developed strategy are valuable samples for proteomics and could serve as a promising liquid biopsy for cancer.

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