Comparing intestinal versus diffuse gastric cancer using a PEFF-oriented proteomic pipeline.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignant neoplasia and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Mac-Cormick et al. recently showed the importance of considering the anatomical region of the tumor in proteomic gastric cancer studies; more differences were found between distinct anatomical regions than when comparing healthy versus diseased tissue. Thus, failing to consider the anatomical region could lead to differential proteins that are not disease specific. With this as motivation, we compared the proteomic profiles of intestinal and diffuse adenocarcinoma from the same anatomical region, the corpus. To achieve this, we used isobaric labeling (iTRAQ) of peptides, a 10-step HILIC fractionation, and reversed-phase nano-chromatography coupled online with a Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer. We updated PatternLab to take advantage of the new Comet-PEFF search engine that enables identifying post-translational modifications and mutations included in neXtProt's PSI Extended FASTA Format (PEFF) metadata. Our pipeline then uses a text-mining tool that automatically extracts PubMed IDs from the proteomic result metadata and drills down keywords from manuscripts related with the biological processes at hand. Our results disclose important proteins such as apolipoprotein B-100, S100 and 14-3-3 proteins, among many others, highlighting the different pathways enriched by each cancer type. SIGNIFICANCE: Gastric cancer is a heterogeneous and multifactorial disease responsible for a significant number of deaths every year. Despite the constant improvement of surgical techniques and multimodal treatments, survival rates are low, mostly due to limited diagnostic techniques and late symptoms. Intestinal and diffuse types of gastric cancer have distinct clinical and pathological characteristics; yet little is known about the molecular mechanisms regulating these two types of gastric tumors. Here we compared the proteomic profile of diffuse and intestinal types of gastric cancer from the same anatomical location, the corpus, from four male patients. This methodological design aimed to eliminate proteomic variations resulting from comparison of tumors from distinct anatomical regions. Our PEFF-tailored proteomic pipeline significantly increased the identifications as when compared to previous versions of PatternLab.

Considerations about gastric cancer proteomics.

The frequency of molecular studies aimed to analyze promoter methylation of tumor suppressor genes and global proteomics in gastric carcinogenesis is increasing. Nonetheless, only a few considered the different types of stomach cells, the tumor location and the influence of Helicobacter pylori and Epstein Barr virus infection (EBV). Molecular differences relating to anatomical and histological tumor areas were also recently described. The authors propose a molecular classification of gastric cancer, dividing it into four subtypes: tumors positive for EBV; microsatellite unstable tumors; genomically stable tumors and tumors with chromosomal instability. RESUMO A frequência de estudos moleculares visando a analisar os promotores de metilação de genes supressores de tumor e proteômica globais na carcinogênese gástrica está aumentando. No entanto, apenas alguns consideraram os diferentes tipos de células do estômago, a localização do tumor e a influência da infecção por Helicobacter pylori e pelo vírus Epstein-Barr (EBV). Diferenças moleculares relacionadas com áreas tumorais anatômicas e histológicas também foram recentemente descritas. Os autores propõem uma classificação molecular de câncer gástrico, dividindo-o em quatro subtipos: tumores positivos para o EBV; tumores microssatélite instáveis; tumores genomicamente estáveis ​​e tumores com instabilidade cromossômica.