MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362593905 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2023-5311

Abstract 5311: Lipidomic profiling of extracellular vesicles derived from cancer cell lines: Lipid species as potential biomarkers and cellular uptake enhancers

2023· article· en· W4362593905 on OpenAlexaff
Ruben R. Lopez Salazar, Prisca Bustamante, Chaymaa Zouggari, Yunxi Chen, Thupten Tsering, Ion Stiharu, Cathérine Mounier, Vahé Nerguizian, Julia V. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipidomeMicrovesiclesBiologyExtracellular vesicleLipidomicsLipid dropletCancer cellCell cultureExtracellularBiochemistryChemistryCell biologyCancermicroRNAGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are lipid bilayer-made particles shed by cells to the extracellular space. They carry different cargo proteins, nucleic acids, and other metabolites. EVs play a role in disseminating cancer to distant organs by communicating with the tumor microenvironment to prepare the metastatic niche and also through horizontal transfer of oncogenic traits to recipient cells. The EV surface, which includes proteins and lipids, plays a role in organotropism and cellular uptake. While proteins have been extensively characterized, lipids have not been explored sufficiently. This work aims to evaluate EV lipids as potential biomarkers and their role in enhancing cellular uptake. Methods: To detect which lipid species (LS) were differentially expressed, we used two cell models of liver metastatic cells: colorectal cancer (HT29) and uveal melanoma (MP41, MP46, MEL 270, OMM 2.5) cell lines. Colon (CCD18-Co) and fibroblast (BJ) immortalized non-cancerous cells were used as controls. EVs were isolated from culture media by ultrafiltration using 100 kDa units filters. Lipids were extracted by methyl-tert-butyl ether for high-throughput lipidomics. High-resolution ‘shotgun’ mass spectrometry was performed. Data was analyzed using LipidView software (SCIEX), and the lipid % normalized was reported. MarkerView (SCIEX) was used to perform Principal Component Analysis. The LS segregating cancerous vs. non-cancerous cells were identified. To evaluate the influence on cellular uptake, we used liposomes as EV models with lipid formulations containing the segregating LS to compare them with naturally occurring lipids and EVs using Incucyte live cell imaging. Results: We identified four LS that segregated EV subpopulations. PE 34:1 and PS 36:1 divided cancerous vs non-cancerous cells, uveal melanoma cells were segregated by PE 36:2, and normal colon cells were segregated by LPC 18:0. We validated the effect of PS 36:1 in cellular uptake by producing liposomes with a lipid formulation resembling the lipid profile of naturally occurring EVs lipid profile with an artificially high DOPS concentration (17% of the total molar ratio). We determined that human hepatocytes preferentially internalized liposomes made of naturally occurring EVs, followed by the ones with a high concentration of DOPS and lastly by a control EV lipid formulation. Conclusion: This study identified EV LS that segregated cancerous, normal, and melanoma cell lines. We showed that LS could be used to distinguish cell populations. Moreover, we demonstrated that LS alone influences cellular uptake and that adding the segregating LS to lipid formulations in excess effects cellular uptake. These results pave the way to identify EV lipid biomarkers and better understand EV based cancer dissemination. Citation Format: Ruben R. Lopez Salazar, Prisca Bustamante, Chaymaa Zouggari, Yunxi Chen, Thupten Tsering, Ion Stiharu, Catherine Mounier, Vahe Nerguizian, Julia Burnier. Lipidomic profiling of extracellular vesicles derived from cancer cell lines: Lipid species as potential biomarkers and cellular uptake enhancers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5311.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207