Proteomic analysis enables distinction of early‐ versus advanced‐stage lung adenocarcinomas. Issue 2 (14th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kelemen, Olga; Pla, Indira; Sanchez, Aniel; Rezeli, Melinda; Szasz, Attila Marcell; Malm, Johan; Laszlo, Viktoria; Kwon, Ho Jeong; Dome, Balazs; Marko‐Varga, Gyorgy
• Is Part Of: Clinical and translational medicine. Volume 10:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-06-14
• Subjects: clinical proteomics -- lung adenocarcinomas -- mass spectrometry -- proteomics; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine, Experimental -- Periodicals; Medical innovations -- Periodicals; Molecular biology -- Periodicals; Pathology, Molecular -- Periodicals; 616.027
• DOI: 10.1002/ctm2.106
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2001-1326

Abstract

Abstract: Background: A gel‐free proteomic approach was utilized to perform in‐depth tissue protein profiling of lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) and normal lung tissues from early and advanced stages of the disease. The long‐term goal of this study is to generate a large‐scale, label‐free proteomics dataset from histologically well‐classified lung ADC that can be used to increase further our understanding of disease progression and aid in identifying novel biomarkers. Methods and results: Cases of early‐stage (I‐II) and advanced‐stage (III‐IV) lung ADCs were selected and paired with normal lung tissues from 22 patients. The histologically and clinically stratified human primary lung ADCs were analyzed by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry. From the analysis of ADC and normal specimens, 4863 protein groups were identified. To examine the protein expression profile of ADC, a peak area‐based quantitation method was used. In early‐ and advanced‐stage ADC, 365 and 366 proteins were differentially expressed, respectively, between normal and tumor tissues (adjusted P ‐value < .01, fold change ≥ 4). A total of 155 proteins were dysregulated between early‐ and advanced‐stage ADCs and 18 were suggested as early‐specific stage ADC. In silico functional analysis of the upregulated proteins in both tumor groups revealed that most of the enriched pathways are involved in mRNA metabolism. Furthermore, the most overrepresented pathways in the proteins that were unique to ADC are related to mRNA metabolic processes. Conclusions: Further analysis of these data may provide an insight into the molecular pathways involved in disease etiology and may lead to the identification of biomarker candidates and potential targets for therapy. Our study provides potential diagnostic biomarkers for lung ADC and novel stage‐specific drug targets for rational intervention.