4.7 Article

A sequence-specific exopeptidase activity test (SSEAT) for Functional biomarker discovery

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 509-518

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M700397-MCP200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U24CA126485, R33CA111942] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R33CA111942, U24CA126485] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One form of functional proteomics entails profiling of genuine activities, as opposed to surrogates of activity or active states, in a complex biological matrix: for example, tracking enzyme-catalyzed changes, in real time, ranging from simple modifications to complex anabolic or catabolic reactions. Here we present a test to compare defined exoprotease activities within individual proteomes of two or more groups of biological samples. It tracks degradation of artificial substrates, under strictly controlled conditions, using semiautomated MALDI-TOF mass spectrometric analysis of the resulting patterns. Each fragment is quantitated by comparison with double labeled, non-degradable internal standards (all-D-amino acid peptides) spiked into the samples at the same time as the substrates to reflect adsorptive and processing-related losses. The full array of metabolites is then quantitated (coefficients of variation of 6.3-14.3% over five replicates) and subjected to multivariate statistical analysis. Using this approach, we tested serum samples of 48 metastatic thyroid cancer patients and 48 healthy controls, with selected peptide substrates taken from earlier standard peptidomics screens (i.e. the discovery phase), and obtained class predictions with 94% sensitivity and 90% specificity without prior feature selection (24 features). The test all but eliminates reproducibility problems related to sample collection, storage, and handling as well as to possible variability in endogenous peptide precursor levels because of hemostatic alterations in cancer patients.

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