4.7 Article

Multivariate statistical differentiation of renal cell carcinomas based on lipidomic analysis by ambient ionization imaging mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 398, 期 7-8, 页码 2969-2978

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4259-6

关键词

Ambient ionization; Kidney cancer; Lipidomics; Mass spectrometry; Molecular imaging; Phospholipids; Tissue analysis

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [1 R21 EB009459-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Desorption electrospray ionization (DESI) mass spectrometry (MS) was used in an imaging mode to interrogate the lipid profiles of thin tissue sections of 11 sample pairs of human papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and adjacent normal tissue and nine sample pairs of clear cell RCC and adjacent normal tissue. DESI-MS images showing the spatial distributions of particular glycerophospholipids (GPs) and free fatty acids in the negative ion mode were compared to serial tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Increased absolute intensities as well as changes in relative abundance were seen for particular compounds in the tumor regions of the samples. Multivariate statistical analysis using orthogonal projection to latent structures treated partial least square discriminate analysis (PLS-DA) was used for visualization and classification of the tissue pairs using the full mass spectra as predictors. PLS-DA successfully distinguished tumor from normal tissue for both papillary and clear cell RCC with misclassification rates obtained from the validation set of 14.3% and 7.8%, respectively. It was also used to distinguish papillary and clear cell RCC from each other and from the combined normal tissues with a reasonable misclassification rate of 23%, as determined from the validation set. Overall DESI-MS imaging combined with multivariate statistical analysis shows promise as a molecular pathology technique for diagnosing cancerous and normal tissue on the basis of GP profiles.

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