ABSTRACT: Research on molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis plays an important role in diagnosing and treating gastric cancer. Metabolic profiling may offer the opportunity to understand the molecular mechanism of carcinogenesis and help to non-invasively identify the potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis of human gastric cancer. The aims of this study were to explore the underlying metabolic mechanisms of gastric cancer and to identify biomarkers associated with morbidity. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) was used to analyze the serum metabolites of 30 Chinese gastric cancer patients and 30 healthy controls. Diagnostic models for gastric cancer were constructed using orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). Acquired metabolomic data were analyzed by the nonparametric Wilcoxon test to find serum metabolic biomarkers for gastric cancer. The OPLS-DA model showed adequate discrimination between cancer and non-cancer cohorts while the model failed to discriminate different pathological stages (I-IV) of gastric cancer patients. A total of 44 endogenous metabolites such as amino acids, organic acids, carbohydrates, fatty acids, and steroids were detected, of which 18 differential metabolites were identified with significant differences. A total of 13 variables were obtained for their greatest contribution in the discriminating OPLS-DA model [variable importance in the projection (VIP) value >1.0], among which 11 metabolites were identified using both VIP values (VIP >1) and the Wilcoxon test. These metabolites potentially revealed perturbations of glycolysis and of amino acid, fatty acid, cholesterol, and nucleotide metabolism of gastric cancer patients. These results suggest that gastric cancer serum metabolic profiling has great potential in detecting this disease and helping to understand its metabolic mechanisms.
Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas / Sociedade Brasileira de Biofisica ... [et al.] 11/2011; 45(1):78-85. · 1.08 Impact Factor