4.6 Article

Differential Proteomics for Distinguishing Ischemic Stroke from Controls: a Pilot Study of the SpecTRA Project

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL STROKE RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 590-599

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12975-018-0609-z

关键词

Proteomics; Plasma proteins; Mass spectrometry; Stroke; Hematologic tests; Infarction

资金

  1. Genome British Columbia [4125-Penn]
  2. Genome Canada [4125-Penn]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A diagnostic blood test for stroke is desirable but will likely require multiple proteins rather than a single troponin. Validating large protein panels requires large patient numbers. Mass spectrometry (MS) is a cost-effective tool for this task. We compared differences in the abundance of 147 protein markers to distinguish 20 acute cerebrovascular syndrome (ACVS) patients who presented to the Emergency Department of one urban hospital within <24h from onset) and from 20 control patients who were enrolled via an outpatient neurology clinic. We targeted proteins from the stroke literature plus cardiovascular markers previously studied in our lab. One hundred forty-one proteins were quantified using MS, 8 were quantified using antibody protein enrichment with MS, and 32 were measured using ELISA, with some proteins measured by multiple techniques. Thirty proteins (4 by ELISA and 26 by the MS techniques) were differentially abundant between mimic and stroke after adjusting for age in robust regression analyses (FDR<0.20). A logistic regression model using the first two principal components of the proteins significantly improved discrimination between strokes and controls compared to a model based on age alone (p<0.001, cross-validated AUC 0.93 vs. 0.78). Significant proteins included markers of inflammation (47%), coagulation (40%), atrial fibrillation (7%), neurovascular unit injury (3%), and other (3%). These results suggest the potential value of plasma proteins as biomarkers for ACVS diagnosis and the role of plasma-based MS in this area.

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

4.6
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