Fecal metabolomic profiles: A comparative study of patients with colorectal cancer
Adenomatous polyps
Colorectal cancer
Fecal metabolomics
Fecal samples
Nuclear magnetic resonance metabolomics
Journal
World journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 2219-2840
Titre abrégé: World J Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883448
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2021
14 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
09
03
2021
revised:
17
05
2021
accepted:
25
08
2021
entrez:
1
11
2021
pubmed:
2
11
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of death in both males and females worldwide, shows a positive response to therapy and usually a better prognosis when detected at an early stage. However, the survival rate declines when the diagnosis is late and the tumor spreads to other organs. Currently, the measures widely used in the clinic are fecal occult blood test and evaluation of serum tumor markers, but the lack of sensitivity and specificity of these markers restricts their use for CRC diagnosis. Due to its high sensitivity and precision, colonoscopy is currently the gold-standard screening technique for CRC, but it is a costly and invasive procedure. Therefore, the implementation of custom-made methodologies including those with minimal invasiveness, protection, and reproducibility is highly desirable. With regard to other screening methods, the screening of fecal samples has several benefits, and metabolomics is a successful method to classify the metabolite shift in living systems as a reaction to pathophysiological influences, genetic modifications, and environmental factors. To characterize the variation groups and potentially recognize some diagnostic markers, we compared with healthy controls (HCs) the fecal nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomic profiles of patients with CRC or adenomatous polyposis (AP). Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used in combination with multivariate and univariate statistical approaches, to define the fecal metabolic profiles of 32 CRC patients, 16 AP patients, and 38 HCs well matched in age, sex, and body mass index. NMR metabolomic analyses revealed that fecal sample profiles differed among CRC patients, AP patients, and HCs, and some discriminatory metabolites including acetate, butyrate, propionate, 3-hydroxyphenylacetic acid, valine, tyrosine and leucine were identified. In conclusion, we are confident that our data can be a forerunner for future studies on CRC management, especially the diagnosis and evaluation of the effectiveness of treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of death in both males and females worldwide, shows a positive response to therapy and usually a better prognosis when detected at an early stage. However, the survival rate declines when the diagnosis is late and the tumor spreads to other organs. Currently, the measures widely used in the clinic are fecal occult blood test and evaluation of serum tumor markers, but the lack of sensitivity and specificity of these markers restricts their use for CRC diagnosis. Due to its high sensitivity and precision, colonoscopy is currently the gold-standard screening technique for CRC, but it is a costly and invasive procedure. Therefore, the implementation of custom-made methodologies including those with minimal invasiveness, protection, and reproducibility is highly desirable. With regard to other screening methods, the screening of fecal samples has several benefits, and metabolomics is a successful method to classify the metabolite shift in living systems as a reaction to pathophysiological influences, genetic modifications, and environmental factors.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the variation groups and potentially recognize some diagnostic markers, we compared with healthy controls (HCs) the fecal nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomic profiles of patients with CRC or adenomatous polyposis (AP).
METHODS
METHODS
Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used in combination with multivariate and univariate statistical approaches, to define the fecal metabolic profiles of 32 CRC patients, 16 AP patients, and 38 HCs well matched in age, sex, and body mass index.
RESULTS
RESULTS
NMR metabolomic analyses revealed that fecal sample profiles differed among CRC patients, AP patients, and HCs, and some discriminatory metabolites including acetate, butyrate, propionate, 3-hydroxyphenylacetic acid, valine, tyrosine and leucine were identified.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, we are confident that our data can be a forerunner for future studies on CRC management, especially the diagnosis and evaluation of the effectiveness of treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34720532
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i38.6430
pmc: PMC8517777
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6430-6441Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 May 28;26(20):2514-2532
pubmed: 32523308
Cell. 2014 Jul 17;158(2):288-299
pubmed: 25036629
NMR Biomed. 2009 Apr;22(3):342-8
pubmed: 19006102
Clin Med Res. 2007 Dec;5(4):228-37
pubmed: 18086907
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Sep 28;25(36):5543-5558
pubmed: 31576099
J Proteome Res. 2019 Oct 4;18(10):3649-3660
pubmed: 31483662
Nutr Cancer. 2011;63(4):653-62
pubmed: 21598179
Front Pharmacol. 2018 Nov 23;9:1354
pubmed: 30532706
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2019 Jan 21;58(4):968-994
pubmed: 29999221
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000 Jan;35(1):54-60
pubmed: 10672835
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013 Mar;57(3):483-93
pubmed: 23319439
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 06;8(8):e70803
pubmed: 23940645
Lancet. 2014 Apr 26;383(9927):1437
pubmed: 24766949
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2008 May;8(3):277-88
pubmed: 18598107
Sci Rep. 2019 Mar 11;9(1):4128
pubmed: 30858406
Anal Chem. 2006 Jul 1;78(13):4281-90
pubmed: 16808434
J Proteomics. 2012 Feb 2;75(4):1079-88
pubmed: 22079244
Front Immunol. 2017 Dec 22;8:1900
pubmed: 29375559
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1 Suppl):268S-276S
pubmed: 15640490
Anal Chem. 2015 Jun 16;87(12):5930-7
pubmed: 25985090
Br J Cancer. 2016 Sep 27;115(7):848-57
pubmed: 27560555
Comput Biol Chem. 2016 Dec;65:45-53
pubmed: 27750207
Nutrients. 2015 Apr 14;7(4):2839-49
pubmed: 25875123
Cancer Res. 2012 Jan 1;72(1):356-64
pubmed: 22080567
Metabolites. 2021 Jul 02;11(7):
pubmed: 34357331
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Mar 6;146(5):376-89
pubmed: 17339623
Annu Rev Immunol. 2012;30:677-706
pubmed: 22224761
Metabolites. 2019 Mar 22;9(3):
pubmed: 30909447
J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Aug 12;57(15):6485-501
pubmed: 19580283
Lancet. 2005 Jan 8-14;365(9454):153-65
pubmed: 15639298
Cancer Biomark. 2010;9(1-6):235-65
pubmed: 22112479
Oncotarget. 2016 May 17;7(20):29454-64
pubmed: 27107423
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 11;7(1):784
pubmed: 28400566
Nutrients. 2017 Jan 01;9(1):
pubmed: 28045428
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2014 Dec 1;307(11):C979-85
pubmed: 25273884
Int J Cancer. 2019 Sep 15;145(6):1679-1689
pubmed: 30720869
Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14(2):89-103
pubmed: 31616522
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):31-54
pubmed: 29160902
J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2343-9
pubmed: 16177193
Metabolomics. 2010 Mar;6(1):119-128
pubmed: 20339442
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jul 1;25(19):2840-6
pubmed: 17502626
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016 Apr;4(2):221-30
pubmed: 26993871
Metabolomics. 2019 Oct 14;15(11):141
pubmed: 31612356
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2014 Jul;406(19):4757-63
pubmed: 24820062
BMC Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 30;16(1):84
pubmed: 27473867
J Nutr Biochem. 2009 Oct;20(10):743-52
pubmed: 19716282
J Cancer. 2013;4(3):217-26
pubmed: 23459594
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jun 28;13(13):
pubmed: 34203535
Dis Markers. 2019 Apr 7;2019:3491852
pubmed: 31089393
J Proteome Res. 2007 Feb;6(2):546-51
pubmed: 17269711
Genome Biol. 2019 Aug 15;20(1):168
pubmed: 31416464
Biores Open Access. 2016 May 01;5(1):137-45
pubmed: 27274912
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jul 28;23(28):5086-5096
pubmed: 28811705
Immunity. 2014 Jan 16;40(1):128-39
pubmed: 24412617
Dig Dis. 2000;18(2):75-82
pubmed: 11060470