4.5 Article

Quantitative proteomics using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues of oral squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 100, 期 9, 页码 1605-1611

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2009.01227.x

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Innovation of Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical proteomics using a large archive of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks has long been a challenge. Recently, a method for extracting proteins from FFPE tissue in the form of tryptic peptides was developed. Here we report the application of a highly sensitive mass spectrometry (MS)-based quantitative proteome method to a small amount of samples obtained by laser microdissection from FFPE tissues. Cancerous and adjacent normal epithelia were microdissected from FFPE tissue blocks of 10 squamous cell carcinomas of the tongue. Proteins were extracted in the form of tryptic peptides and analyzed by 2-dimensional image-converted analysis of liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (2DICAL), a label-free quantitative proteomics method developed in our laboratory. From a total of 25 018 peaks we selected 72 mass peaks whose expression differed significantly between cancer and normal tissues (P < 0.001, paired t-test). The expression of transglutaminase 3 (TGM3) was significantly down-regulated in cancer and correlated with loss of histological differentiation. Hypermethylation of TGM3 gene CpG islands was observed in 12 oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) cell lines with reduced TGM3 expression. These results suggest that epigenetic silencing of TGM3 plays certain roles in the process of oral carcinogenesis. The method for quantitative proteomic analysis of FFPE tissue described here offers new opportunities to identify disease-specific biomarkers and therapeutic targets using widely available archival samples with corresponding detailed pathological and clinical records. (Cancer Sci 2009; 100: 1605-1611).

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

4.5
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