Article

Breast cancer subtyping from plasma proteins

BMC Medical Genomics (Impact Factor: 3.91). 01/2013; 6(1). DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-6-S1-S6

ABSTRACT Background
Early detection of breast cancer in blood is both appealing clinically and challenging technically due to the disease's illusive nature and heterogeneity. Today, even though major breast cancer subtypes have been characterized, i.e., luminal A, luminal B, HER2+, and basal-like, little is known about the heterogeneity of breast cancer in blood, which could help to discover minimally invasive protein biomarkers with which clinical researchers can detect, classify, and monitor different breast cancer subtypes.

Results
In this study, we performed an integrative pathway-assisted clustering analysis of breast cancer subtypes from plasma proteome samples collected from 80 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and 80 healthy women. First, four breast cancer subtypes and additionally unknown subtype (according to existing annotation) were determined based on pathology lab test results in primary tumors of enrolled patients. Next, we developed and applied four distance metrics, i.e., Protein Intensity, Q-Value, Pathway Profile, and Distance Score Function, to measure and characterize these cancer subtypes. Then, we developed a permutation test to evaluate the significant protein level changes in each biological pathway for each breast cancer subtype, using q-value. Lastly, we developed a pathway-protein matrix for each of the four distance methods to estimate the distance between breast cancer subtypes, for which further Pathway Association Network analysis were performed.

Conclusions
We found that 1) the luminal group (luminal A and luminal B) are clustered together, as well as the basal group (basal-like and HER2+) and 2) luminal A and luminal B are more close to each other than basal-like and HER2+ to each other. Our results were consistent with a recent independent breast cancer research from the Cancer Genome Atlas Network using genomic DNA copy number arrays, DNA methylation, exome sequencing, messenger RNA arrays, microRNA sequencing and reverse-phase protein arrays. Our results showed that changes of different breast cancer subtypes at the pathway level are more profound and less variable than those at the molecular level. Similar subtypes share distinct yet similar pathway activation networks, while dissimilar subtypes are different also at the level of pathway activation networks. The results also showed that distance or similarity of cancer subtypes based on pathway analysis might be able to provide further insight into the intrinsic relationship of breast cancer subtypes. We believe integrative pathway-assisted proteomics analysis described here can become a model for reliable clustering or classification of other cancer subtypes.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
45 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.
    Breast cancer research: BCR 01/2013; 15(5):R92. DOI:10.1186/bcr3493 · 5.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease whose molecular diversity is not well reflected in clinical and pathological markers used for prognosis and treatment selection. As tumor cells secrete proteins into the extracellular environment, some of these proteins reach circulation and could become suitable biomarkers for improving diagnosis or monitoring response to treatment. As many signaling pathways and interaction networks are altered in cancerous tissues by protein phosphorylation, changes in the secretory phosphoproteome of cancer tissues could reflect both disease progression and subtype. To test this hypothesis, we compared the phosphopeptide-enriched fractions obtained from proteins secreted into conditioned media derived from 5 luminal and 5 basal type breast cancer cell lines using label-free quantitative mass spectrometry. Altogether over 5,000 phosphosites derived from 1,756 phosphoproteins were identified, several of which have the potential to qualify as phosphopeptide plasma biomarker candidates for the more aggressive basal and also the luminal-type breast cancers. The analysis of phosphopeptides from breast cancer patient plasma and controls allowed us to construct a discovery list of phosphosites under rigorous collection conditions, and second to qualify discovery candidates generated from the CM studies. Indeed, a set of basal-specific phosphorylation CM site candidates derived from IBP3, CD44, OPN, FSTL3, LAMB1 and STC2, and luminal-specific candidates derived from CYTC and IBP5 were selected and, based on their presence in plasma, quantified across all cell line CM samples using Skyline MS1 intensity data. Together, this approach allowed us to assemble a set of novel cancer subtype specific phosphopeptide candidates for subsequent biomarker verification and clinical validation.
    Molecular &amp Cellular Proteomics 02/2014; 13(4). DOI:10.1074/mcp.M113.035485 · 7.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proteomics is inherently a systems science that studies not only measured protein and their expressions in a cell, but also the interplay of proteins, protein complexes, signaling pathways, and network modules. There is a rapid accumulation of Proteomics data in recent years. However, Proteomics data are highly variable, with results being sensitive to data preparation methods, sample condition, instrument types, and analytical method. To address this challenge in Proteomics data analysis, we review common approaches developed to incorporate biological function and network topological information. We categorize existing tools into four categories: tools with basic functional information and little topological features (e.g., GO category analysis), tools with rich functional information and little topological features (e.g., GSEA), tools with basic functional information and rich topological features (e.g., Cytoscape), and tools with rich functional information and rich topological features (e.g., PathwayExpress). We review the general application potential of these tools to Proteomics. In addition, we also review tools that can achieve automated learning of pathway modules and features, and tools that help perform integrated network visual analytics.
    Journal of Theoretical Biology 06/2014; 362. DOI:10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.05.031 · 2.30 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
57 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014