Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33828141›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Proteomic comparison between different tissue preservation methods for identification of promising biomarkers of urothelial bladder cancer.

Alberto Valdés, Athanasios Bitzios, Eszter Kassa, Ganna Shevchenko, Alexander Falk, Per-Uno Malmström, Anca Dragomir, Ulrika Segersten, Sara Bergström Lind

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alberto Valdés *Department of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Athanasios Bitzios *Department of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Eszter KassaDepartment of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ganna ShevchenkoDepartment of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Alexander FalkDepartment of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden.
Per-Uno MalmströmDepartment of Surgical Science, Urology, Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala University, 751 85, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anca DragomirDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ulrika SegerstenDepartment of Surgical Science, Urology, Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala University, 751 85, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sara Bergström LindDepartment of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University, Box 599, 751 24, Uppsala, Sweden. sara.lind@uadm.uu.se.
Uppsala University · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Samples in biobanks are generally preserved by formalin-fixation and paraffin-embedding (FFPE) and/or optimal cutting temperature compound (OCT)-embedding and subsequently frozen. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based analysis of these samples is now available via developed protocols, however, the differences in results with respect to preservation methods needs further investigation. Here we use bladder urothelial carcinoma tissue of two different tumor stages (Ta/T1-non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and T2/T3-muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC)) which, upon sampling, were divided and preserved by FFPE and OCT. Samples were parallel processed from the two methods and proteins were analyzed with label-free quantitative MS. Over 700 and 1200 proteins were quantified in FFPE and OCT samples, respectively. Multivariate analysis indicates that the preservation method is the main source of variation, but also tumors of different stages could be differentiated. Proteins involved in mitochondrial function were overrepresented in OCT data but missing in the FFPE data, indicating that these proteins are not well preserved by FFPE. Concordant results for proteins such as HMGCS2 (uniquely quantified in Ta/T1 tumors), and LGALS1, ANXA5 and plastin (upregulated in T2/T3 tumors) were observed in both FFPE and OCT data, which supports the use of MS technology for biobank samples and encourages the further evaluation of these proteins as biomarkers.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorChromatography, LiquidFixativesFormaldehydeHumansParaffin EmbeddingProteinsProteomicsSpecimen HandlingTandem Mass SpectrometryTissue FixationTissue PreservationUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorFixativesFormaldehydeProteins

Identifiers

PMID33828141
PMCPMC8027873
OpenAlexW3140051486

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.