4.5 Article

Proteomic Profiling of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) using Magnetic Beads-based Serum Fractionation and MALDI-TOF MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 321-327

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.21773

关键词

intraductal carcinoma; biomarker; MALDI-TOF MS; MB-WCX; MB-IMAC-Cu

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81200845]
  2. Key Science and Technology Program of Shaanxi province [2012 K13-02-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo reveal the serum proteomic profiling of intraductal carcinoma (IDC) patients in China, establish a serum proteome fractionation technique for choosing magnetic beads for proteomic analysis in breast cancer research; and identify differentially expressed peptides (m/z; P < 0.0001) as potential biomarkers of early IDCs. MethodsWe used two different kinds of magnetic beads (magnetic bead-based weak cation exchange chromatography (MB-WCX) and immobilized metal ion affinity chromatography (MB-IMAC-Cu)) to analyze 32 patients with early stage (stages I-II) IDC and 32 healthy control serum samples for proteomic profiling by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis. The mass spectra, analyzed using ClinProTools software, distinguished between IDC patients and healthy individuals based on k-nearest neighbor genetic algorithm. ResultsThe serum samples purified in the MB-WCX group provided better proteomic patterns than the MB-IMAC-Cu group. The samples purified by MB-WCX had better average peak numbers, higher peak intensities, and better capturing ability of low abundance proteins or peptides in serum samples. In addition, the MB-WCX and MB-IMAC-Cu purification methods, followed MALDI-TOF MS identification and use of ClinProTools software accurately distinguished patients with early stage IDC from healthy individuals. ConclusionSerum proteomic profiling by MALDI-TOF MS is a novel potential tool for the clinical diagnosis of patients with IDC in China.

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