4.7 Article

High-throughput quantitative profiling of serum N-glycome by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and N-glycomic fingerprint of liver fibrosis

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 1254-1263

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.085563

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The use of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (MS) in quantitative glycan profiling has not been reported. In this study, we attempted to establish a high-throughput quantitative assay for profiling serum N-glycome, and we applied the new assay to identifying serum N-glycans for diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Methods: N-glycans from whole serum proteins in 2 mu L serum were released by enzymatic digestion, cleaned up by hydrophilic chromatography, and subsequently quantitatively profiled with a linear MALDI-TOF MS system, which was originally designed for quantitative proteomic profiling. Serum N-glycome profiles from 46 patients with chronic hepatitis B infection and with different degrees of liver fibrosis were examined. Results: The intra- and interassay CVs of peak intensities of the standard N-glycans were <8% and <17%, respectively. When the assay was applied to the analysis of serum N-glycome profiles, 17 peaks were found to be potential biomarkers for detection of liver fibrosis/cirrhosis. Linear regression analysis revealed that 4 peaks of 1341.5, 1829.7, 1933.3, and 2130.3 m/z (all P <0.005) had complementary value in detecting liver fibrosis and included them, but not any serological markers, in the diagnostic model. Leave-one-out cross-validation showed the diagnostic model could identify significant fibrosis (Ishak score >= 3) and cirrhosis (Ishak score >= 5), both at 85% accuracy. Conclusion: This is the first study to illustrate the quantitative aspect of MALDI-TOF MS in N-glycome profiling and the first study to reveal the potential value of the serum N-glycan profile for identifying liver fibrosis. (c) 2007 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

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