4.1 Article

Tape Stripped Stratum Corneum Samples Prove to be Suitable for Comprehensive Proteomic Investigation of Actinic Keratosis

期刊

PROTEOMICS CLINICAL APPLICATIONS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/prca.201800084

关键词

actinic keratosis; mass-spectrometry based proteomics; noninvasive skin biopsy; tape stripping

资金

  1. Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD) Research & Education Network Research Grant Scheme
  2. University of Sydney
  3. Cancer Institute NSW Early Career Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Actinic keratoses (AK) are premalignant tumors that can be clinically difficult to differentiate from skin cancer. An easy, quick, and reliable noninvasive alternative to biopsy is needed to definitively confirm the clinical diagnoses. This study evaluates Tape Stripping (TS) of stratum corneum (SC) for noninvasive biomarker analysis of AK. Method Lesional and nonlesional human SC samples are obtained by application of stripping tapes on the skin of five AK patients. Following sample preparation, protein digests are analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Bioinformatics analyses are performed using Funrich, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA), and Oncomine bioinformatics and analytical tools. Results Of the total 613 unique proteins identified, 477 overlap with proteins identified in the proteomic analysis of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) AK samples. Additionally, 32 proteins are significantly increased and four proteins decreased in AK samples compared to the normal skin (p < 0.05). In line with proteomic analysis of FFPE samples, IPA and Funrich analysis show that differentially abundant proteins in the TS AK samples are implicated in PI3K/AKT and EGF signaling pathways. These findings are confirmed at the transcript level. Conclusion Tape stripped AK sample is suitable for biomarker analysis. The application of this technique further could revolutionize management of keratinocytic skin tumors by reducing the need for traditional invasive biopsy.

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

4.1
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