4.3 Article

High accuracy differentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by immunoglobulin G glycosylation

期刊

CLINICAL PROTEOMICS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12014-018-9221-1

关键词

Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP); Pancreatic cancer; Glycosylation; Immunoglobulin G (IgG)

资金

  1. Taiwan National Health Research Institutes [NHRI-EX103-10301EI]
  2. Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology [NSC 102-2113-M-001-002-MY5]
  3. Taiwan Pancreas Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMisdiagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) as pancreatic cancer (PDAC) or vice versa can cause dismal patents' outcomes. Changes in IgG glycosylation are associated with cancers and autoimmune diseases. This study investigated the IgG glycosylation profiles as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in PDAC and AIP.MethodsSerum IgG-glycosylation profiles from 86 AIP patients, 115 PDAC patients, and 57 controls were analyzed using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was applied to build a decision tree for discriminating PDAC from AIP. The result was validated in an independent cohort.ResultsCompared with AIP patients and controls, PDAC patients had significantly higher agalactosylation, lower fucosylation, and sialylation of IgG1, a higher agalactosylation ratio of IgG1 and a higher agalactosylation ratio of IgG2. AIP patients had significantly higher fucosylation of IgG1 and a higher sialylation ratio of IgG subclasses 1, 2 and 4. Using the CART analysis of agalactosylation and sialylation ratios in the IgG to discriminate AIP from PDAC, the diagnostic accuracy of the glycan markers was 93.8% with 94.6% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity. There were no statistically significant difference of IgG-glycosylation profiles between diffuse type and focal type AIP.ConclusionsAIP and PDAC patients have distinct IgG-glycosylation profilings. IgG-glycosylation could different PDAC from AIP with high accuracy.

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