Application of “Omics” Technologies for Diagnosis and Pathogenesis of Neurological Infections

Network analysis of plasma proteomes in affective disorders

The conventional differentiation of affective disorders into major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) has insufficient biological evidence. Utilizing multiple proteins quantified in plasma may provide critical insight into these limitations. In this study, the plasma proteomes of 299 patients with MDD or BD (aged 19-65 years old) were quantified using multiple reaction monitoring. Based on 420 protein expression levels, a weighted correlation network analysis was performed. Significant clinical traits with protein modules were determined using correlation analysis. Top hub proteins were determined using intermodular connectivity, and significant functional pathways were identified. Weighted correlation network analysis revealed six protein modules. The eigenprotein of a protein module with 68 proteins, including complement components as hub proteins, was associated with the total Childhood Trauma Questionnaire score (r = -0.15, p = 0.009). Another eigenprotein of a protein module of 100 proteins, including apolipoproteins as hub proteins, was associated with the overeating item of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (r = 0.16, p = 0.006). Functional analysis revealed immune responses and lipid metabolism as significant pathways for each module, respectively. No significant protein module was associated with the differentiation between MDD and BD. In conclusion, childhood trauma and overeating symptoms were significantly associated with plasma protein networks and should be considered important endophenotypes in affective disorders.

Quantitative Proteomic Approach for Discriminating Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder by Multiple Reaction Monitoring-Mass Spectrometry

Because major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD) manifest with similar symptoms, misdiagnosis is a persistent issue, necessitating their differentiation through objective methods. This study was aimed to differentiate between these disorders using a targeted proteomic approach. Multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) analysis was performed to quantify protein targets regarding the two disorders in plasma samples of 270 individuals (90 MDD, 90 BD, and 90 healthy controls (HCs)). In the training set (72 MDD and 72 BD), a generalizable model comprising nine proteins was developed. The model was evaluated in the test set (18 MDD and 18 BD). The model demonstrated a good performance (area under the curve (AUC) >0.8) in discriminating MDD from BD in the training (AUC = 0.84) and test sets (AUC = 0.81) and in distinguishing MDD from BD without current hypomanic/manic/mixed symptoms (90 MDD and 75 BD) (AUC = 0.83). Subsequently, the model demonstrated excellent performance for drug-free MDD versus BD (11 MDD and 10 BD) (AUC = 0.96) and good performance for MDD versus HC (AUC = 0.87) and BD versus HC (AUC = 0.86). Furthermore, the nine proteins were associated with neuro, oxidative/nitrosative stress, and immunity/inflammation-related biological functions. This proof-of-concept study introduces a potential model for distinguishing between the two disorders.

Personalized laboratory medicine: a patient-centered future approach

In contrast to population-based medical decision making, which emphasizes the use of evidence-based treatment strategies for groups of patients, personalized medicine is based on optimizing treatment at the level of the individual patient. The creation of molecular profiles of individual patients was made possible by the advent of "omics" technologies, based on high throughput instrumental techniques in combination with biostatistics tools and artificial intelligence. The goal of personalized laboratory medicine is to use advanced technologies in the process of preventive, curative or palliative patient management. Personalized medicine does not rely on changes in concentration of a single molecular marker to make a therapeutic decision, but rather on changes of a profile of markers characterizing an individual patient's status, taking into account not only the expected response to treatment of the disease but also the expected response of the patient. Such medical approach promises a more effective diagnostics with more effective and safer treatment, as well as faster recovery and restoration of health and improved cost effectiveness. The laboratory medicine profession is aware of its key role in personalized medicine, but to empower the laboratories, at least an enhancement in cooperation between disciplines within laboratory medicine will be necessary.