Differentially expressed glycoproteins in pre- and post-digital rectal examination urine samples for detecting aggressive prostate cancer

Recent progress in mass spectrometry-based urinary proteomics

Serum or plasma is frequently utilized in biomedical research; however, its application is impeded by the requirement for invasive sample collection. The non-invasive nature of urine collection makes it an attractive alternative for disease characterization and biomarker discovery. Mass spectrometry-based protein profiling of urine has led to the discovery of several disease-associated biomarkers. Proteomic analysis of urine has not only been applied to disorders of the kidney and urinary bladder but also to conditions affecting distant organs because proteins excreted in the urine originate from multiple organs. This review provides a progress update on urinary proteomics carried out over the past decade. Studies summarized in this review have expanded the catalog of proteins detected in the urine in a variety of clinical conditions. The wide range of applications of urine analysis-from characterizing diseases to discovering predictive, diagnostic and prognostic markers-continues to drive investigations of the urinary proteome.

The Potential of Extracellular Matrix- and Integrin Adhesion Complex-Related Molecules for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Discovery

Prostate cancer is among the top five cancer types according to incidence and mortality. One of the main obstacles in prostate cancer management is the inability to foresee its course, which ranges from slow growth throughout years that requires minimum or no intervention to highly aggressive disease that spreads quickly and resists treatment. Therefore, it is not surprising that numerous studies have attempted to find biomarkers of prostate cancer occurrence, risk stratification, therapy response, and patient outcome. However, only a few prostate cancer biomarkers are used in clinics, which shows how difficult it is to find a novel biomarker. Cell adhesion to the extracellular matrix (ECM) through integrins is among the essential processes that govern its fate. Upon activation and ligation, integrins form multi-protein intracellular structures called integrin adhesion complexes (IACs). In this review article, the focus is put on the biomarker potential of the ECM- and IAC-related molecules stemming from both body fluids and prostate cancer tissue. The processes that they are involved in, such as tumor stiffening, bone turnover, and communication via exosomes, and their biomarker potential are also reviewed.

Development of a predictive model to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by integrating serum glycoproteomics and clinical variables

BACKGROUND

Prostate Cancer (PCa) represents the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum testing, currently used for PCa screening, lacks the necessary sensitivity and specificity. New non-invasive diagnostic tools able to discriminate tumoral from benign conditions and aggressive (AG-PCa) from indolent forms of PCa (NAG-PCa) are required to avoid unnecessary biopsies.

METHODS

In this work, 32 formerly N-glycosylated peptides were quantified by PRM (parallel reaction monitoring) in 163 serum samples (79 from PCa patients and 84 from individuals affected by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)) in two technical replicates. These potential biomarker candidates were prioritized through a multi-stage biomarker discovery pipeline articulated in: discovery, LC-PRM assay development and verification phases. Because of the well-established involvement of glycoproteins in cancer development and progression, the proteomic analysis was focused on glycoproteins enriched by TiO2 (titanium dioxide) strategy.

RESULTS

Machine learning algorithms have been applied to the combined matrix comprising proteomic and clinical variables, resulting in a predictive model based on six proteomic variables (RNASE1, LAMP2, LUM, MASP1, NCAM1, GPLD1) and five clinical variables (prostate dimension, proPSA, free-PSA, total-PSA, free/total-PSA) able to distinguish PCa from BPH with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93. This model outperformed PSA alone which, on the same sample set, was able to discriminate PCa from BPH with an AUC of 0.79. To improve the clinical managing of PCa patients, an explorative small-scale analysis (79 samples) aimed at distinguishing AG-PCa from NAG-PCa was conducted. A predictor of PCa aggressiveness based on the combination of 7 proteomic variables (FCN3, LGALS3BP, AZU1, C6, LAMB1, CHL1, POSTN) and proPSA was developed (AUC of 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

To address the impelling need of more sensitive and specific serum diagnostic tests, a predictive model combining proteomic and clinical variables was developed. A preliminary evaluation to build a new tool able to discriminate aggressive presentations of PCa from tumors with benign behavior was exploited. This predictor displayed moderate performances, but no conclusions can be drawn due to the limited number of the sample cohort. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with identifier PXD035935.