4.7 Article

Elemental and isotopic analysis of oral squamous cell carcinoma tissues using sector-field and multi-collector ICP-mass spectrometry

期刊

TALANTA
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 92-97

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2016.12.007

关键词

Sector-field ICP-MS; Multi-collector ICP-MS; Oral squamous cell carcinoma; Elemental determinations; Isotopic analysis

资金

  1. Principado de Asturias [FC-15-GRUPIN14-092]
  2. Ministerio de Education y Ciencia [MINECO-13-CTQ2013-49032-C2-1-R]
  3. Ghent University [COST TD1304]
  4. Clarin-Cofund Marie Curie program [PA-ACB14-05]
  5. FWO [G023014N]
  6. FWO-Vlaanderen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elemental and isotopic analysis via single-collector and multi-collector ICP-mass spectrometry, respectively, have been explored as a tool for identifying potential differences between non-tumor and oral squamous cell carcinoma tissues. Elemental concentrations of major and minor elements, known to be essential for different processes in the cell (i.e. Na, Ca, Mg, K, P, Fe, Cu and Zn), have been determined and results for cancerous and non-cancerous tissues collected from the same individual have been compared. Among the elements studied, only Mg, K and P turned out to be significantly higher in concentration in the tumor tissues. However, a shift towards higher and wider concentration ranges has also been observed for Cu and Zn in the tumor samples, whereas for Ca lower concentrations were established. Possible isotope ratio variations for Cu and Zn in both biological tissues have also been evaluated with the same goal. delta Zn-66 results did not provide an obvious trend, but in the case of Cu, a clear distinction between the tumor and non-tumor tissues was observed: delta Cu-65 values ranged between -0.68% and 0.03% in the non-tumor tissues, whereas tumor samples turned out to be enriched in Cu-65, with delta Cu-65 values between 0.10% and 0.93%. These results confirm the considerable potential of isotopic and elemental studies for biomedical purposes.

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