↓ Skip to main content

Identification of serum proteome signatures of locally advanced and metastatic gastric cancer: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identification of serum proteome signatures of locally advanced and metastatic gastric cancer: a pilot study
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0668-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agata Abramowicz, Anna Wojakowska, Agnieszka Gdowicz-Klosok, Joanna Polanska, Pawel Rodziewicz, Pawel Polanowski, Agnieszka Namysl-Kaletka, Monika Pietrowska, Jerzy Wydmanski, Piotr Widlak

Abstract

The gastric cancer is one of the most common and mortal cancer worldwide. The initial asymptomatic development and further nonspecific symptoms result in diagnosis at the advanced stage with poor prognosis. Yet, no clinically useful biomarkers are available for this malignancy, and invasive gastrointestinal endoscopy remains the only reliable option at the moment. Hence, there is a need for discovery of clinically useful noninvasive diagnostic and/or prognostic tool as an alternative (or complement) for current diagnostic tools. Here we aimed to search for serum proteins characteristic for local and invasive gastric cancer. Pre-treatment blood samples were collected from patients with diagnosed gastric adenocarcinoma at the different stage of disease: 35 patients with locally advanced cancer and 18 patients with metastatic cancer; 50 healthy donors were also included as a control group. The low-molecular-weight fraction of serum proteome (i.e., endogenous peptidome) was profiled by the MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry, and the whole proteome components were identified and quantified by the LC-MS/MS shotgun approach. Multicomponent peptidome signatures were revealed that allowed good discrimination between healthy controls and cancer patients, as well as between patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancer. Moreover, a LC-MS/MS approach revealed 49 serum proteins with different abundances between healthy donors and cancer patients (predominantly proteins associated with inflammation and acute phase response). Furthermore, 19 serum proteins with different abundances between patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancer were identified (including proteins associated with cytokine/chemokine response and metabolism of nucleic acids). However, neither peptidome profiling nor shotgun proteomics approach allowed detecting serum components discriminating between two subgroups of patients with local disease who either developed or did not develop metastases during follow-up. The molecular differences between locally advanced and metastatic gastric cancer, as well as more obvious differences between healthy individuals and cancer patients, have marked reflection at the level of serum proteome. However, we have no evidence that features of pre-treatment serum proteome could predict a risk of cancer dissemination in patients treated due to local disease. Nevertheless, presented data confirmed potential applicability of a serum proteome signature-based biomarker in diagnostics of gastric cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,975
of 3,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,256
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#52
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.