Identification of differentially expressed proteins in direct expressed prostatic secretions of men with organ-confined versus extracapsular prostate cancer.

University of Toronto, Canada
Molecular &amp Cellular Proteomics (Impact Factor: 7.25). 09/2012; DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M112.017889
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Current protocols for the screening of prostate cancer cannot accurately discriminate clinically indolent tumors from more aggressive ones. One reliable indicator of outcome has been the determination of organ-confined versus non-organ-confined disease but even this determination is often only made following prostatectomy. This underscores the need to explore alternate avenues to enhance outcome prediction of prostate cancer patients. Fluids that are proximal to the prostate, such as expressed prostatic secretions (EPS), are attractive sources of potential prostate cancer biomarkers as these fluids likely bath the tumor. Direct-EPS samples from 16 individuals with extracapsular (n = 8) or organ-confined (n = 8) prostate cancer were used as a discovery cohort, and were analyzed in duplicate by a 9-step MudPIT on a LTQ-Orbitrap XL mass spectrometer. A total of 624 unique proteins were identified by at least two unique peptides with a 0.2 % false discovery rate. A semi-quantitative spectral counting algorithm identified 133 significantly differentially expressed proteins in the discovery cohort. Integrative data mining prioritized 14 candidates, including two known prostate cancer biomarkers: prostate-specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase, which were significantly elevated in the direct-EPS from the organ-confined cancer group. These and five other candidates (SFN, MME, PARK7, TIMP1, TGM4) were verified by Western blotting in an independent set of direct-EPS from patients with biochemically recurrent disease (n = 5) versus patients with no evidence of recurrence upon follow-up (n = 10). Lastly, we performed proof-of-concept SRM-MS-based relative quantification of the five candidates using unpurified heavy isotope-labeled synthetic peptides spiked into pools of EPS-urines from men with extracapsular and organ-confined prostate tumors. This study represents the first efforts to define the direct-EPS proteome from two major sub-classes of prostate cancer using shotgun proteomics and verification in EPS-urine by SRM-MS.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Exosomes and other microvesicles are emerging as rich reservoirs of tumor-specific proteins and biomarkers for cancer detection and progression. For prostate cancer, exosomes secreted by the prostate can be isolated from prostatic secretions, seminal fluid, tissue, urine or blood for further proteomic analysis. Structurally, prostate-derived exosomes are distinct in size, membrane composition and specific prostate protein content, potentially providing a novel and easily isolatable source of biomarkers from clinical biofluids. The key to these isolation strategies will be the targeting of specific prostatic proteins expressed in these exosomes, thus requiring detailed proteomic characterizations. A summary of ongoing efforts to characterize the proteome of these unique prostate cancer-associated exosomes and their potential applications for use in biomarker assays is presented.
    Expert Review of Proteomics 02/2014; · 3.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rapidly developing proteomic tools are improving detection of deregulated kallikrein-related peptidase (KLK) expression, at the protein level, in prostate and ovarian cancer, as well as facilitating the determination of functional consequences downstream. Mass spectrometry (MS)-driven proteomics uniquely allows for the detection, identification and quantification of thousands of proteins in a complex protein pool, and this has served to identify certain KLKs as biomarkers for these diseases. In this review we describe applications of this technology in KLK biomarker discovery, and elucidate MS-based techniques which have been used for unbiased, global screening of KLK substrates within complex protein pools. Although MS-based KLK degradomic studies are limited to date, they helped to discover an array of novel KLK substrates. Substrates identified by MS-based degradomics are reported with improved confidence over those determined by incubating a purified or recombinant substrate and protease of interest, in vitro. We propose that these novel proteomic approaches represent the way forward for KLK research, in order to correlate proteolysis of biological substrates with tissue-related consequences, toward clinical targeting of KLK expression and function for cancer diagnosis, prognosis and therapies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    PROTEOMICS - CLINICAL APPLICATIONS 02/2014; · 1.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular biomarkers hold promise to advance the noninvasive diagnosis of male reproductive system disorders and facilitate the identification and management of these conditions through screening, early diagnosis and more accurate prognosis. Seminal plasma has great potential as a proximal fluid for protein biomarker discovery and as a clinical sample for noninvasive diagnostics. The seminal plasma proteome contains thousands of proteins and includes a large number of tissue-specific proteins that might accurately indicate a pathological process in the tissue of origin. Potential protein biomarkers for male reproductive system disorders are more abundant in seminal plasma than in blood serum or urine, and, therefore, are more easily identified and quantified in semen by mass spectrometry and other techniques. These methods have enabled elaboration of the composition of the seminal plasma proteome and the tissue specificity of seminal plasma proteins. Strategies have been developed to discover protein biomarkers in seminal plasma through integrated 'omics' approaches. Biomarkers of male infertility and prostate cancer are now emerging, and it is evident that seminal plasma has the potential to complement other diagnostic tools available in urology clinics.
    Nature Reviews Urology 04/2014; 11:278–288. · 4.79 Impact Factor


Available from
May 17, 2014