4.3 Article

Comparison of pancreas juice proteins from cancer versus pancreatitis using quantitative proteomic analysis

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 70-79

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mpa.0000240615.20474.fd

关键词

pancreatic juice; pancreatitis; ICAT; biomarker; pancreatic cancer; proteomics

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA107209, R01 CA107209-02] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01HV28179, N0I-HV-28179] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Pancreatitis is an inflammatory condition of the pancreas. However, it often shares many molecular features with pancreatic cancer. Biomarkers present in pancreatic cancer frequently occur in the setting of pancreatitis. The efforts to develop diagnostic biomarkers for pancreatic cancer have thus been complicated by the false-positive involvement of pancreatitis. Methods: In an attempt to develop protein biomarkers for pancreatic cancer, we previously use quantitative proteomics to identify and quantify the proteins from pancreatic cancer juice. Pancreatic juice is a rich source of proteins that are shed by the pancreatic ductal cells. In this study, we used a similar approach to identify and quantify proteins from pancreatitis juice. Results: In total, 72 proteins were identified and quantified in the comparison of pancreatic juice from pancreatitis patients versus pooled normal control juice. Nineteen of the juice proteins were overexpressed, and 8 were underexpressed in pancreatitis juice by at least 2-fold compared with normal pancreatic juice. Of these 27 differentially expressed proteins in pancreatitis, 9 proteins were also differentially expressed in the pancreatic juice from pancreatic cancer patient. Conclusions: Identification of these differentially expressed proteins from pancreatitis juice provides useful information for future study of specific pancreatitis-associated proteins and to eliminate potential false-positive biomarkers for pancreatic 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

4.3
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