Glycerophospholipids pathways and chromosomal instability in gastric cancer: Global lipidomics analysis

doi:10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.181

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 11, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (10154)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

588

WORD

297

HTML

5066

Figures (1-5)

290

Tables (1-3)

225

Sum=6466

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

589

Download

904

Sum=1493

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

949

Download

1246

Sum=2195

Mar 15, 2019 (publication date) through Nov 23, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (12)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

ISSN

1948-5204

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Basic Study

World J Gastrointest Oncol. Mar 15, 2019; 11(3): 181-194
Published online Mar 15, 2019. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.181

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the study

Term	TCGA system
Term	CIN	Non-CIN
Number	9	9
Age (median yr, range)	68.1 (56-79)	66.9 (52-87)
Sex (male/female)	7/2	5/4
Size (cm)	4.0 (1.8-6.9)	5.4 (2.3-11.6)
Lauren's classification
Intestinal type	6	1
Diffuse type	0	5
Mixed type	3	3
Stage
I	1	0
II	2	2
III	5	6
IV	1	1

TCGA: The Cancer Genome Atlas; CIN: Chromosomal instability.

Table 2 Compound list (n = 32) of the significant changes between tumor and normal group using electrospray ionization positive and negative modes

Catalog	Putative ID	RT (min)	m/z	Adduct ion	VIP	FC
TG	TG(54:3)	15.6	902.8202	[M+NH₄]⁺	2.3	0.5
	TG(52:4)	15.1	872.7729	[M+NH₄]⁺	3.2	0.4
	TG(52:2)	15.6	876.8048	[M+NH₄]⁺	3.2	0.5
	TG(50:3)	15.0	846.7568	[M+NH₄]⁺	2.9	0.3
	TG(50:2)	15.3	848.7722	[M+NH₄]⁺	3.3	0.4
SM	SM(d18:1/24:0)	13.3	815.7015	[M+H]⁺	1.6	1.3
	SM(d18:1/18:0)	7.1	775.5980	[M+FA-H]^-	1.7	0.7
	SM(d18:0/22:0)	9.9	811.6627	[M+H]⁺	2.1	1.3
	SM(d18:0/16:0)	6.0	705.5912	[M+H]⁺	1.0	1.4
PS	PS(P-18:0/22:6)	9.2	818.5336	[M-H]^-	1.0	0.7
PI	PI(22:3/16:0)	6.1	887.5682	[M-H]^-	1.4	1.9
	PI(20:4/16:0)	4.2	857.5202	[M-H]^-	1.4	0.6
	PI(16:0/18:2)	4.4	833.520	[M-H]^-	3.0	0.8
PE	PE(P-18:1/20:4)	7.1	748.5279	[M-H]^-	2.5	0.7
	PE(P-18:0/18:2)	9.7	726.5437	[M-H]^-	2.5	1.7
	PE(P-16:0/18:2)	7.3	698.5117	[M-H]^-	4.0	1.9
	PE(20:4/16:0)	6.2	740.5237	[M+H]⁺	3.6	0.4
	PE(18:2/18:1)	6.6	740.5221	[M-H]^-	2.3	0.4
	PE(18:2/16:0)	6.4	714.5061	[M-H]^-	2.2	0.4
	PE(18:1/18:1)	8.2	742.5385	[M-H]^-	2.4	0.6
PC	PC(38:4)	6.4	810.6034	[M+H]⁺	2.6	1.7
	PC(34:3)	4.8	756.5561	[M+H]⁺	14.2	1.5
	PC(30:0)	5.5	706.5394	[M+H]⁺	2.9	2.4
	PC(18:2/16:0)	6.0	758.5702	[M+H]⁺	3.0	0.6
	PC(18:0/20:3)	8.6	812.6191	[M+H]⁺	3.3	3.6
	PC(18:0/18:1)	9.8	832.6090	[M+FA-H]^-	7.9	1.3
	PC (16:1/16:0)	5.6	776.5467	[M+FA-H]^-	1.2	2.0
	PC (16:0/16:0)	7.3	734.5717	[M+H]⁺	1.5	1.4
LysoPC	LysoPC (16:0)	1.2	496.3395	[M+H]⁺	3.1	0.7
Ceramide	Cer (d18:1/24:0)	13.9	694.6341	[M+FA-H]^-	1.6	1.6
carnitine	Linoleyl carnitine (C18:2)	1.0	424.3408	[M+H]⁺	1.2	0.6
carnitine	Oleoyl carnitine (C18:1)	1.2	426.3560	[M+H]⁺	1.1	0.8

All P value < 0.05. The protonated [M+H]⁺ and anionized adduct [M+NH₄]⁺ in positive mode, and deprotonated [M-H]^- and formic acid adduct [M+FA-H]^- in negative ion mode. FC: Fold changes (tumor/normal); LyPC: Lysophosphocholine; PC: Phosphocholine; PE: Phosphatidylethanolamine; SM: Sphingomyelin; PI: Phosphoinositol; TG: Triglyceride; VIP: Variable importance in projection.

Table 3 Compound list (n = 17) of the significant changes between chromosomal instability and non-chromosomal instability groups using electrospray ionization positive and negative modes

Catalog	Putative ID	RT (min)	m/z	Adduct ion	VIP	FC
SM	SM(d18:1/18:0)	7.2	731.6077	[M+H]⁺	5.8	0.49
PI	PI(22:6/18:0)	5.1	909.554	[M-H]^-	1.6	1.53
PI	PI(22:3/16:0)	6.1	887.568	[M-H]^-	3.0	1.75
PE	PE(P-18:0/18:2)	9.7	726.544	[M-H]^-	2.8	1.92
	PE(P-16:0/20:5)	5.8	720.499	[M-H]^-	2.8	2.15
	PE(37:4)	5.8	754.5381	[M+H]⁺	2.9	1.77
	PE(22:6/18:1)	5.8	788.523	[M-H]^-	1.9	1.43
	PE(18:2/16:0)	6.5	716.5233	[M+H]⁺	2.7	1.52
PC	PC(38:6)	6.5	806.571	[M+H]⁺	3.2	2.06
	PC(38:4)	6.7	810.6041	[M+H]⁺	5.9	2.34
	PC(36:5)	4.8	780.5556	[M+H]⁺	5.7	2.30
	PC(33:2)	5.3	744.5562	[M+H]⁺	3.2	1.73
	PC(33:1)	6.5	746.5715	[M+H]⁺	3.2	1.59
	PC(30:0)	5.5	706.5394	[M+H]⁺	4.6	1.89
	PC(16:1/16:1)	4.6	730.5399	[M+H]⁺	4.1	1.98
	PC(16:1/16:0)	5.6	776.547	[M+FA-H]^-	4.3	1.46
DG	DG(38:4)	12.6	667.5287	[M+Na]⁺	1.6	0.66

All P value < 0.05. The protonated [M+H]⁺ and sodium adduct [M+Na]⁺ in positive mode, and deprotonated [M-H]^- and formic acid adduct [M+FA-H]^- in negative ion mode. FC: Fold changes [Chromosomal instability (CIN)/non-CIN]; PC: Phosphocholine; PE: Phosphatidylethanolamine; PI: Phosphatidylinositol; SM: Sphingomyelin; DG: Diglyceride; VIP: Variable importance in projection.

Citation: Hung CY, Yeh TS, Tsai CK, Wu RC, Lai YC, Chiang MH, Lu KY, Lin CN, Cheng ML, Lin G. Glycerophospholipids pathways and chromosomal instability in gastric cancer: Global lipidomics analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2019; 11(3): 181-194
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v11/i3/181.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v11.i3.181