Micro-NMR for rapid molecular analysis of human tumor samples - PubMed (original) (raw)
Micro-NMR for rapid molecular analysis of human tumor samples
Jered B Haun et al. Sci Transl Med. 2011.
Abstract
Although tumor cells obtained from human patients by image-guided intervention are a valuable source for diagnosing cancer, conventional means of analysis are limited. Here, we report the development of a quantitative micro-NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) system for rapid, multiplexed analysis of human tumors. We implemented the technology in a clinical setting to analyze cells obtained by fine-needle aspirates from suspected lesions in 50 patients and validated the results in an independent cohort of another 20 patients. Single fine-needle aspirates yielded sufficient numbers of cells to enable quantification of multiple protein markers in all patients within 60 min. Moreover, using a four-protein signature, we report a 96% accuracy for establishing a cancer diagnosis, surpassing conventional clinical analyses by immunohistochemistry. Our results also show that protein expression patterns decay with time, underscoring the need for rapid sampling and diagnosis close to the patient bedside. We also observed a surprising degree of heterogeneity in protein expression both across the different patient samples and even within the same tumor, which has important implications for molecular diagnostics and therapeutic drug targeting. Our quantitative point-of-care micro-NMR technique shows potential for cancer diagnosis in the clinic.
Figures
Fig. 1
The μNMR clinical analysis system (DMR-3) and bioconjugation strategy (BOND-2). (Left, top) Complete μNMR system for use at the patient's bedside. The bottom component contains all of the circuitry for NMR measurements, whereas the top enclosure holds a permanent magnet and chip-sized microliter-volume sensors. (Left, bottom) State-of-the-art μNMR probe used for sensing within the mini magnet. (Right, top) Smart phone interface for operating the μNMR system. (Right, bottom) Fine-needle aspirates from each patient sample were processed with a bio-orthogonal amplification strategy adapted for clinical samples. The bio-orthogonal amplification allows ultrasensitive detection of cellular proteins.
Fig. 2
Validation of NMR measurements. (Top) Plots showing the correlation of EGFR measurements obtained by μNMR versus ELISA, FACS, or immunohistochemistry (IHC) in clinical samples where sufficient cells were available for conventional proteomic techniques (typically 105 to 106 for ELISA and FACS versus 102 for μNMR). Note the excellent correlation coefficients for the different methods. (Bottom) Representative immunofluorescence stains of a representative human sample. The primary antibody (green) was labeled with Alexa Fluor 488 and TCO. The magnetic nanoparticle (MNP) (red) was labeled with VT680 and Tz. Note colocalization between nanoparticles (conferring NMR properties) and antibody (indicating protein content). For additional calibration data, see figs. S1 and S2. AU, arbitrary unit.
Fig. 3
Distribution of protein expression markers. Waterfall plots showing the expression levels of each of the different biomarkers sorted from high (left) to low (right). Each column represents a different patient sample (green, malignant; blue, benign).
Fig. 4
Expression of different protein biomarkers arranged by patient number. Patients 5, 12, 17, 18, 21, and 42 had benign lesions, and the remainder had various epithelial cancers (breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, lung, pancreatic, or undifferentiated).
Fig. 5
A graphical representation of the Spearman correlation coefficients (0, no correlation; 1, perfect correlation) between protein markers created to examine their interrelationship. For example, EGFR and HER2 have a good correlation (coefficient = 0.6), whereas EpCAM and HER2 have a poor correlation (coefficient = 0.1).
Fig. 6
Variability of protein marker expression stratified by diagnosis and by global leukocyte versus nonleukocyte comparisons. (Left) Individual marker expression for both malignant and benign samples. (Right) Overall leukocyte and nonleukocyte cell counts.
Fig. 7
ROC curves. ROC curves were calculated for single protein markers, for a dual marker set, as well as for triple and quadruple marker combinations to determine optimum μNMR threshold values. Az, area under the curve; 95% CL, 95% confidence limits.
Fig. 8
A representative clinical case illustrating the potential use of μNMR in cancer diagnostics. Patient 3 underwent CT-guided biopsy for an enlarging (2.5 cm by 6.8 cm) presacral lesion in the setting of active metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma. Both cytology and core biopsy assessed the lesion as benign (inflammatory tissue). The lesion was thus treated with a drainage catheter. μNMR analysis, using the quadruple marker combination (MUC-1 + HER2 + EGFR + EpCAM), unequivocally classified the lesion as malignant (aggregate μNMR value was 11.25 and well above the malignancy threshold of ≥1.6). Repeat chest and abdomen CT after 2 months revealed a significant interval enlargement of the biopsied lesion as well as new metastases.
Fig. 9
Analysis of sample heterogeneity. (A) Repeat measurement of the same samples (note the different scale compared to other graphs). (B) Measurement of repeat fine-needle aspirate samples obtained with the same coaxial needle (see table S3 for variance component estimates for intrasubject variability). (C) Measurement of repeat fine-needle aspirates from different tumor sites. (D and E) Effect of prospective preservation treatments on extracellular and intracellular protein measurements. Live, living cells; FA, 2% formaldehyde; Meth, 100% methanol; TX, 0.05% Triton X-100 in PBS; FB1, Fix Buffer 1; Sap, saponin. Asterisk, optimized conditions chosen for subsequent experiments. (F) Effect of time at 4°C before fixation (for example, during transport to a central laboratory facility) on protein measurements. There was a rapid change in protein expression in unfixed samples.
Similar articles
- Breast Cancer Metabolomics Using NMR.
Sharma U, Jagannathan NR. Sharma U, et al. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;2037:195-213. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-9690-2_12. Methods Mol Biol. 2019. PMID: 31463847 - A fine-needle aspiration-based protein signature discriminates benign from malignant breast lesions.
Franzén B, Kamali-Moghaddam M, Alexeyenko A, Hatschek T, Becker S, Wik L, Kierkegaard J, Eriksson A, Muppani NR, Auer G, Landegren U, Lewensohn R. Franzén B, et al. Mol Oncol. 2018 Sep;12(9):1415-1428. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12350. Epub 2018 Aug 9. Mol Oncol. 2018. PMID: 30019538 Free PMC article. - Translational Metabolomics of Head Injury: Exploring Dysfunctional Cerebral Metabolism with Ex Vivo NMR Spectroscopy-Based Metabolite Quantification.
Wolahan SM, Hirt D, Glenn TC. Wolahan SM, et al. In: Kobeissy FH, editor. Brain Neurotrauma: Molecular, Neuropsychological, and Rehabilitation Aspects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015. Chapter 25. In: Kobeissy FH, editor. Brain Neurotrauma: Molecular, Neuropsychological, and Rehabilitation Aspects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015. Chapter 25. PMID: 26269925 Free Books & Documents. Review. - Identification and validation of novel prognostic markers in Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Rabjerg M. Rabjerg M. Dan Med J. 2017 Oct;64(10):B5339. Dan Med J. 2017. PMID: 28975890 - Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in the investigation of cancer at The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research.
Leach MO. Leach MO. Phys Med Biol. 2006 Jul 7;51(13):R61-82. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R05. Epub 2006 Jun 20. Phys Med Biol. 2006. PMID: 16790921 Review.
Cited by
- Highly stable integration of graphene Hall sensors on a microfluidic platform for magnetic sensing in whole blood.
Shah N, Iyer V, Zhang Z, Gao Z, Park J, Yelleswarapu V, Aflatouni F, Charlie Johnson AT, Issadore D. Shah N, et al. Microsyst Nanoeng. 2023 May 31;9:71. doi: 10.1038/s41378-023-00530-2. eCollection 2023. Microsyst Nanoeng. 2023. PMID: 37275264 Free PMC article. - Nanomaterials for Molecular Detection and Analysis of Extracellular Vesicles.
Taylor ML, Giacalone AG, Amrhein KD, Wilson RE Jr, Wang Y, Huang X. Taylor ML, et al. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2023 Jan 28;13(3):524. doi: 10.3390/nano13030524. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36770486 Free PMC article. Review. - Isolation, Detection and Analysis of Circulating Tumour Cells: A Nanotechnological Bioscope.
Das U, Banik S, Nadumane SS, Chakrabarti S, Gopal D, Kabekkodu SP, Srisungsitthisunti P, Mazumder N, Biswas R. Das U, et al. Pharmaceutics. 2023 Jan 13;15(1):280. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15010280. Pharmaceutics. 2023. PMID: 36678908 Free PMC article. Review. - Phasor Analysis of Fluorescence Lifetime Enables Quantitative Multiplexed Molecular Imaging of Three Probes.
Rahim MK, Zhao J, Patel HV, Lagouros HA, Kota R, Fernandez I, Gratton E, Haun JB. Rahim MK, et al. Anal Chem. 2022 Oct 18;94(41):14185-14194. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.2c02149. Epub 2022 Oct 3. Anal Chem. 2022. PMID: 36190014 Free PMC article. - Nanoparticles and bioorthogonal chemistry joining forces for improved biomedical applications.
Idiago-López J, Moreno-Antolín E, de la Fuente JM, Fratila RM. Idiago-López J, et al. Nanoscale Adv. 2021 Jan 21;3(5):1261-1292. doi: 10.1039/d0na00873g. eCollection 2021 Mar 9. Nanoscale Adv. 2021. PMID: 36132873 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Ramaswamy S, Ross KN, Lander ES, Golub TR. A molecular signature of metastasis in primary solid tumors. Nat. Genet. 2003;33:49–54. - PubMed
- Taylor BS, Varambally S, Chinnaiyan AM. A systems approach to model metastatic progression. Cancer Res. 2006;66:5537–5539. - PubMed
- Maheswaran S, Sequist LV, Nagrath S, Ulkus L, Brannigan B, Collura CV, Inserra E, Diederichs S, Iafrate AJ, Bell DW, Digumarthy S, Muzikansky A, Irimia D, Settleman J, Tompkins RG, Lynch TJ, Toner M, Haber DA. Detection of mutations in EGFR in circulating lung-cancer cells. N. Engl.J.Med. 2008;359:366–377. - PMC - PubMed
- Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:57–70. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
- P50 CA127003-05/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 EB010011/EB/NIBIB NIH HHS/United States
- T32 CA079443-10/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U54 CA119349/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- P50 CA127003/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- F32 CA144139-02/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- UO1 HL080731/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 EB010011-03/EB/NIBIB NIH HHS/United States
- F32 CA144139/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 HL080731/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 EB004626-07/EB/NIBIB NIH HHS/United States
- T32 CA079443/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U01 HL080731-05/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
- U54 CA119349-05/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 EB004626/EB/NIBIB NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources