Identification of Differentially Expressed Proteins in Direct Expressed Prostatic Secretions of Men with Organ-confined Versus Extracapsular Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current protocols for the screening of prostate cancer cannot accurately discriminate clinically indolent tumors from more aggressive ones. One reliable indicator of outcome has been the determination of organ-confined versus nonorgan-confined disease but even this determination is often only made following prostatectomy. This underscores the need to explore alternate avenues to enhance outcome prediction of prostate cancer patients. Fluids that are proximal to the prostate, such as expressed prostatic secretions (EPS), are attractive sources of potential prostate cancer biomarkers as these fluids likely bathe the tumor. Direct-EPS samples from 16 individuals with extracapsular (n = 8) or organ-confined (n = 8) prostate cancer were used as a discovery cohort, and were analyzed in duplicate by a nine-step MudPIT on a LTQ-Orbitrap XL mass spectrometer. A total of 624 unique proteins were identified by at least two unique peptides with a 0.2% false discovery rate. A semiquantitative spectral counting algorithm identified 133 significantly differentially expressed proteins in the discovery cohort. Integrative data mining prioritized 14 candidates, including two known prostate cancer biomarkers: prostate-specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase, which were significantly elevated in the direct-EPS from the organ-confined cancer group. These and five other candidates (SFN, MME, PARK7, TIMP1, and TGM4) were verified by Western blotting in an independent set of direct-EPS from patients with biochemically recurrent disease (n = 5) versus patients with no evidence of recurrence upon follow-up (n = 10). Lastly, we performed proof-of-concept SRM-MS-based relative quantification of the five candidates using unpurified heavy isotope-labeled synthetic peptides spiked into pools of EPS-urines from men with extracapsular and organ-confined prostate tumors. This study represents the first efforts to define the direct-EPS proteome from two major subclasses of prostate cancer using shotgun proteomics and verification in EPS-urine by SRM-MS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".