Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30087585›Full record

ArticleClinical proteomics2018

Residual tissue repositories as a resource for population-based cancer proteomic studies.

Paul D Piehowski, Vladislav A Petyuk, Ryan L Sontag, Marina A Gritsenko, Karl K Weitz, Thomas L Fillmore, Jamie Moon, Hala Makhlouf, Rodrigo F Chuaqui, Emily S Boja and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical proteomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Paul D Piehowski1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Vladislav A Petyuk1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Ryan L Sontag1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Marina A Gritsenko1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Karl K Weitz1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Thomas L Fillmore1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Jamie Moon1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Hala Makhlouf2Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
Rodrigo F Chuaqui2Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
Emily S Boja3Office of Cancer Clinical Proteomics Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA.
Henry Rodriguez3Office of Cancer Clinical Proteomics Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA.
Jerry S H Lee4Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA.
Richard D Smith1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Danielle M Carrick5Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
Tao Liu1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.
Karin D Rodland1Biological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7070-6541

Funding

PNNL Clinical Proteome Characterization CenterU24CA160019 · NCI · BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES · PI RODLAND, KARIN D, SMITH, RICHARD D · 2011 to 2016
$15.7M
PNNL Proteome Characterization CenterU24CA210955 · NCI · BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES · PI LIU, TAO, SMITH, RICHARD D · 2016 to 2020
$5.3M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA160019NCI NIH HHS U24 CA210955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass spectrometry-based proteomics has become a powerful tool for the identification and quantification of proteins from a wide variety of biological specimens. To date, the majority of studies utilizing tissue samples have been carried out on prospectively collected fresh frozen or optimal cutting temperature (OCT) embedded specimens. However, such specimens are often difficult to obtain, in limited in supply, and clinical information and outcomes on patients are inherently delayed as compared to banked samples. Annotated formalin fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue specimens are available for research use from a variety of tissue banks, such as from the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) registries' residual tissue repositories. Given the wealth of outcomes information associated with such samples, the reuse of archived FFPE blocks for deep proteomic characterization with mass spectrometry technologies would provide a valuable resource for population-based cancer studies. Further, due to the widespread availability of FFPE specimens, validation of specimen integrity opens the possibility for thousands of studies that can be conducted worldwide.

methodsTo examine the suitability of the SEER repository tissues for proteomic and phosphoproteomic analysis, we analyzed 60 SEER patient samples, with time in storage ranging from 7 to 32 years; 60 samples with expression proteomics and 18 with phosphoproteomics, using isobaric labeling. Linear modeling and gene set enrichment analysis was used to evaluate the impacts of collection site and storage time.

resultsAll samples, regardless of age, yielded suitable protein mass after extraction for expression analysis and 18 samples yielded sufficient mass for phosphopeptide analysis. Although peptide, protein, and phosphopeptide identifications were reduced by 50, 20 and 76% respectively, from comparable OCT specimens, we found no statistically significant differences in protein quantitation correlating with collection site or specimen age. GSEA analysis of GO-term level measurements of protein abundance differences between FFPE and OCT embedded specimens suggest that the formalin fixation process may alter representation of protein categories in the resulting dataset.

conclusionsThese studies demonstrate that residual FFPE tissue specimens, of varying age and collection site, are a promising source of protein for proteomic investigations if paired with rigorously verified mass spectrometry workflows.

Indexed as

Formalin fixed paraffin embeddedPhosphoproteomicsProteomicsSurveillance, epidemiology and end resultsTandem mass tags

Identifiers

PMID30087585
PMCPMC6074037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.