2. Academic Validation
  3. Urinary nucleosides as biomarkers of breast, colon, lung, and gastric cancer in Taiwanese

Urinary nucleosides as biomarkers of breast, colon, lung, and gastric cancer in Taiwanese

  • PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e81701. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081701.
Wei-Yi Hsu 1,  Chao-Jung Chen 2,  Yu-Chuen Huang 3,  Fuu-Jen Tsai 4,  Long-Bin Jeng 5,  Chien-Chen Lai 6
Affiliations

Affiliations

  • 1 Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan ; China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • 2 Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan ; Graduate Institute of Integrated Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • 3 Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan ; School of Chinese Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • 4 Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan ; Department of Health and Nutrition Biotechnology, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • 5 Department of Surgery, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
  • 6 Institute of Molecular Biology, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan ; Graduate Institute of Chinese Medical Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
PMID: 24367489 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081701
Abstract

Urinary nucleosides are associated with many types of Cancer. In this study, six targeted urinary nucleosides, namely adenosine, cytidine, 3-methylcytidine, 1-methyladenosine, inosine, and 2-deoxyguanosine, were chosen to evaluate their role as biomarkers of four different types of cancer: lung Cancer, gastric Cancer, colon Cancer, and breast Cancer. Urine samples were purified using solid-phase extraction (SPE) and then analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). The Mann-Whitney U test and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were used to compare differences in urinary nucleosides between patients with one of four types of Cancer and healthy controls. The diagnostic sensitivity of single nucleosides for different types of Cancer ranged from 14% to 69%. In contrast, the diagnostic sensitivity of a set of six nucleosides ranged from 37% to 69%. The false-positive identification rate associated with the set of six nucleosides in urine was less than 2% compared with that of less than 5% for a single nucleoside. Furthermore, combining the set of six urinary nucleosides with carcinoembryonic antigen improved the diagnostic sensitivity for colon Cancer. In summary, the study show that a set of six targeted nucleosides is a good diagnostic marker for breast and colon cancers but not for lung and gastric cancers.

Figures
Products