Glycoprotein Profiles of Human Breast Cells Demonstrate a Clear Clustering of Normal/Benign versus Malignant Cell Lines and Basal versus Luminal Cell Lines

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, San Francisco State University , San Francisco, California 94132, United States.
Journal of Proteome Research (Impact Factor: 5). 11/2011; 11(2):656-67. DOI: 10.1021/pr201041j
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Gene expression profiling has defined molecular subtypes of breast cancer including those identified as luminal and basal. To determine if glycoproteins distinguish various subtypes of breast cancer, we obtained glycoprotein profiles from 14 breast cell lines. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis demonstrated that the glycoprotein profiles obtained can serve as molecular signatures to classify subtypes of breast cancer, as well as to distinguish normal and benign breast cells from breast cancer cells. Statistical analyses were used to identify glycoproteins that are overexpressed in normal versus cancer breast cells, and those that are overexpressed in luminal versus basal breast cancer. Among the glycoproteins distinguishing normal breast cells from cancer cells are several proteins known to be involved in cell adhesion, including proteins previously identified as being altered in breast cancer. Basal breast cancer cell lines overexpressed a number of CD antigens, including several integrin subunits, relative to luminal breast cancer cell lines, whereas luminal breast cancer cells overexpressed carbonic anhydrase 12, clusterin, and cell adhesion molecule 1. The differential expression of glycoproteins in these breast cancer cell lines readily allows the classification of the lines into normal, benign, malignant, basal, and luminal groups.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycosylation is estimated to be found in over 50% of human proteins. Aberrant protein glycosylation and alteration of glycans are closely related to many diseases. More than half of the cancer biomarkers are glycosylated-proteins, and specific glycoforms of glycosylated-proteins may serve as biomarkers for either the early detection of disease or the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy for treatment of diseases. Glycoproteomics, therefore, becomes an emerging field that can make unique contributions to the discovery of biomarkers of cancers. The recent advances in mass spectrometry (MS)-based glycoproteomics, which can analyze thousands of glycosylated-proteins in a single experiment, have shown great promise for this purpose. Herein, we described the MS-based strategies that are available for glycoproteomics, and discussed the sensitivity and high throughput in both qualitative and quantitative manners. The discovery of glycosylated-proteins as biomarkers in some representative diseases by employing glycoproteomics was also summarized.
    Clinical Proteomics 05/2014; 11(1):18. DOI:10.1186/1559-0275-11-18
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycosylation of proteins is one of the most important post-translational modifications, with more than half of all human proteins estimated to be glycosylated. It is widely known that aberrant glycosylation has been implicated in many different diseases due to changes associated with biological function and protein folding. In cancer, there is increasing evidence pertaining to the role of glycosylation in tumour formation and metastasis. Alterations in cell surface glycosylation, particularly terminal motifs, can promote invasive behaviour of tumour cells that ultimately lead to the progression of cancer. While a majority of studies have investigated protein glycosylation changes in cancer cell lines and tumour tissue for individual cancers, the review presented here represents a comprehensive, in-depth overview of literature on the structural changes of glycosylation and their associated synthetic enzymes in five different cancer types originating from the breast, colon, liver, skin and ovary. More importantly, this review focuses on key similarities and differences between these cancers which reflect the importance of structural changes of cell surface N- and O-glycans, such as sialylation, fucosylation, degree of branching and the expression of specific glycosyltransferases for each cancer. It is envisioned that the understanding of these biologically relevant glycan alterations on cellular proteins will facilitate the discovery of novel glycan-based biomarkers which could potentially serve as diagnostic and prognostic indicators of cancer. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Proteomics 03/2014; 14(4-5). DOI:10.1002/pmic.201300387 · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycoproteomics has emerged as a prime area of interest within the field of proteomics because glycoproteins have been shown to function as biomarkers for disease and as promising therapeutic targets. A significant challenge in the study of glycoproteins is the fact that they are expressed in relatively low abundance in cells. In response, various enrichment methods have been developed to improve the detection of glycoproteins. One such method involves their capture via oxidation of their glycan chains and covalent attachment with hydrazide resins which, when catalyzed by PNGase F, release N-linked glycans and convert the glycosite Asn to Asp; this conversion is identifiable with LC/ESI-MS/MS as a corresponding increase of 0.984 Da in molecular weight. The present study builds on this body of work, providing evidence of three additional strategies that improve glycoprotein identification: (1) use of a high resolution mass spectrometer-the Q Exactive MS-which delivers 2-3 times more glycoprotein identifications than a low resolution MS; (2) optimization of instrument settings and database search parameters to reduce misidentification of N-linked glycopeptides to ~1 percent; and (3) labeling glycopeptides with (18)O during PNGase F treatment to locate N-linked glycosites within peptides containing multiple N-linked sequons.
    06/2013; 3(2):270-286. DOI:10.3390/biom3020270

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014