Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed non-skin cancer in men worldwide. Patient outcomes are remarkably heterogeneous and the best existing clinical prognostic tools such as International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group, pretreatment serum PSA concentration and T-category, do not accurately predict disease outcome for individual patients. Thus, patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer are often overtreated or undertreated, reducing quality of life and increasing disease-specific mortality. Biomarkers that can improve the risk stratification of these patients are, therefore, urgently needed. The ideal biomarker in this setting will be non-invasive and affordable, enabling longitudinal evaluation of disease status. Prostatic secretions, urine and blood can be sources of biomarker discovery, validation and clinical implementation, and mass spectrometry can be used to detect and quantify proteins in these fluids. Protein biomarkers currently in use for diagnosis, prognosis and relapse-monitoring of localized prostate cancer in fluids remain centred around PSA and its variants, and opportunities exist for clinically validating novel and complimentary candidate protein biomarkers and deploying them into the clinic.
Key points
-
Standard-of-care clinical tools for the management of localized prostate cancer result in substantial overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
-
Fluid-based protein biomarkers have the potential to complement clinical decision-making.
-
Advances in mass spectrometry, such as increased scan speeds and mass resolution, have enabled the systematic discovery and validation of protein biomarkers in prostate-associated fluids.
-
Appropriate sample selection for biomarker discovery and validation can improve detection of prostate-derived proteins in fluids.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sung, H. et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–249 (2021).
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 70, 7–30 (2020).
Musunuru, H. B. et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the sunnybrook experience. J. Urol. 196, 1651–1658 (2016).
Ku, S.-Y. Y., Gleave, M. E. & Beltran, H. Towards precision oncology in advanced prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 645–654 (2019).
Naji, L. et al. Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Fam. Med. 16, 149–154 (2018).
Thompson, I. M. et al. Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or lower. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294, 66–70 (2005).
Serefoglu, E. C. et al. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? J. Can. Urol. Assoc. 7, E293–E298 (2013).
Freedland, S. J. et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69, 495–499 (2007).
Epstein, J. I., Feng, Z., Trock, B. J. & Pierorazio, P. M. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur. Urol. 61, 1019–1024 (2012).
Loeb, S. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65, 1046–1055 (2014).
Rider, J. R. et al. Long-term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population-based study. Eur. Urol. 63, 88–96 (2013).
Philipson, R. G. et al. Patterns of clinical progression in radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.035 (2021).
Mottet, N. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 71, 618–629 (2017).
Mohler, J. L. et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019. JNCCN 17, 479–505 (2019).
Zimmerman, L. J., Li, M., Yarbrough, W. G., Slebos, R. J. C. & Liebler, D. C. Global stability of plasma proteomes for mass spectrometry-based analyses. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 11, M111.014340 (2012).
Decramer, S. et al. Urine in clinical proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 7, 1850–1862 (2008).
Uhlén, M. et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 347, 1260419 (2015).
Ellis, M. J. et al. Connecting genomic alterations to cancer biology with proteomics: the NCI clinical proteomic tumor analysis consortium. Cancer Discov. 3, 1108–1112 (2013).
Aebersold, R. & Mann, M. Mass-spectrometric exploration of proteome structure and function. Nature 537, 347–355 (2016).
Stabile, A. et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat. Rev. Urol. 17, 41–61 (2019).
Koo, K. M., Mainwaring, P. N., Tomlins, S. A. & Trau, M. Merging new-age biomarkers and nanodiagnostics for precision prostate cancer management. Nat. Rev. Urol. 16, 302–317 (2019).
Jeon, J. et al. Temporal stability and prognostic biomarker potential of the prostate cancer urine miRNA transcriptome. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 112, 247–255 (2020).
Balk, S. P., Ko, Y. J. & Bubley, G. J. Biology of prostate-specific antigen. J. Clin. Oncol. 21, 383–391 (2003).
Hossack, T. et al. Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J. Urol. 188, 781–785 (2012).
Loeb, S. et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. 64, 876–892 (2013).
Stefanova, V. et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J. Urol. 201, 1121–1125 (2019).
Lomas, D. J. & Ahmed, H. U. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 17, 372–381 (2020).
Capitanio, U. et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 73, 1087–1091 (2009).
Fütterer, J. J. et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 68, 1045–1053 (2015).
Ahdoot, M. et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 917–928 (2020).
Johnson, D. C. et al. Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur. Urol. 75, 712–720 (2019).
Filson, C. P. et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122, 884–892 (2016).
Schoots, I. G. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 67, 627–636 (2015).
Hsiang, W. et al. Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent biopsy in men with low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Eur. Urol. Focus. 7, 47–54 (2019).
Padhani, A. R., Haider, M. A., Villers, A. & Barentsz, J. O. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: what we see and what we miss. Eur. Urol. 75, 721–722 (2019).
Sonn, G. A. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur. Urol. Focus. 5, 592–599 (2019).
Noguchi, M., Stamey, T. A., McNeal, J. E. & Yemoto, C. M. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J. Urol. 166, 104–110 (2001).
Boutros, P. C. et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 736–745 (2015).
Chua, M. L. K. et al. A prostate cancer “nimbosus”: genomic instability and SChLAP1 dysregulation underpin aggression of intraductal and cribriform subpathologies. Eur. Urol. 72, 665–674 (2017).
Boorjian, S. A. et al. Long-term risk of clinical progression after biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of time from surgery to recurrence. Eur. Urol. 59, 893–899 (2011).
Addona, T. A. et al. Multi-site assessment of the precision and reproducibility of multiple reaction monitoring-based measurements of proteins in plasma. Nat. Biotechnol. 27, 633–641 (2009).
Leth-Larsen, R., Lund, R. R. & Ditzel, H. J. Plasma membrane proteomics and its application in clinical cancer biomarker discovery. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 9, 1369–1382 (2010).
Petricoin, E. F., Belluco, C., Araujo, R. P. & Liotta, L. A. The blood peptidome: a higher dimension of information content for cancer biomarker discovery. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 961–967 (2006).
Niu, Y.-N. & Xia, S.-J. Stroma-epithelium crosstalk in prostate cancer. Asian J. Androl. 11, 28–35 (2009).
Fraser, M. et al. Genomic hallmarks of localized, non-indolent prostate cancer. Nature 541, 359–364 (2017).
Espiritu, S. M. G. et al. The evolutionary landscape of localized prostate cancers drives clinical aggression. Cell 173, 1003–1013.e15 (2018).
Sinha, A. et al. The proteogenomic landscape of curable prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 35, 414–427.e6 (2019).
Lindberg, J., Kristiansen, A., Wiklund, P., Grönberg, H. & Egevad, L. Tracking the origin of metastatic prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 67, 819–822 (2015).
Shipitsin, M. et al. Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error. Br. J. Cancer 111, 1201–1212 (2014).
Bruderer, R. et al. Analysis of 1508 plasma samples by capillary-flow data-independent acquisition profiles proteomics of weight loss and maintenance. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 18, 1242–1254 (2019).
Halabi, S. et al. Overall survival of black and white men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 403–410 (2019).
Taylor, R. A. et al. Germline BRCA2 mutations drive prostate cancers with distinct evolutionary trajectories. Nat. Commun. 8, 13671 (2017).
Steen, H. & Mann, M. The ABC’s (and XYZ’s) of peptide sequencing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 5, 699–711 (2004).
Laskay, Ü. A., Lobas, A. A., Srzentić, K., Gorshkov, M. V. & Tsybin, Y. O. Proteome digestion specificity analysis for rational design of extended bottom-up and middle-down proteomics experiments. J. Proteome Res. 12, 5558–5569 (2013).
Batth, T. S., Francavilla, C. & Olsen, J. V. Off-line high-pH reversed-phase fractionation for in-depth phosphoproteomics. J. Proteome Res. 13, 6176–6186 (2014).
Wolters, D. A., Washburn, M. P. & Yates, J. R. An automated multidimensional protein identification technology for shotgun proteomics. Anal. Chem. 73, 5683–5690 (2001).
Batth, T. S. & Olsen, J. V. Offline high pH reversed-phase peptide fractionation for deep phosphoproteome coverage. in Methods in Molecular Biology Vol. 1355 179–192 (Humana Press Inc., 2016).
Gomes, F. P. & Yates, J. R. Recent trends of capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry in proteomics research. Mass. Spectrom. Rev. 38, 445–460 (2019).
Vasilopoulou, C. G. et al. Trapped ion mobility spectrometry and PASEF enable in-depth lipidomics from minimal sample amounts. Nat. Commun. 11, 331 (2020).
Bekker-Jensen, D. B. et al. A compact quadrupole-orbitrap mass spectrometer with FAIMS interface improves proteome coverage in short LC gradients. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 19, 716–729 (2020).
Mitchell Wells, J. & McLuckey, S. A. Collision-induced dissociation (CID) of peptides and proteins. Methods Enzymol. 402, 148–185 (2005).
Kislinger, T. et al. PRISM, a generic large scale proteomic investigation strategy for mammals. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2, 96–106 (2003).
Elias, J. E., Haas, W., Faherty, B. K. & Gygi, S. P. Comparative evaluation of mass spectrometry platforms used in large-scale proteomics investigations. Nat. Methods 2, 667–675 (2005).
Wong, J. W. H. & Cagney, G. An overview of label-free quantitation methods in proteomics by mass spectrometry. Methods Mol. Biol. 604, 273–283 (2010).
Thompson, A. et al. Tandem mass tags: A novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 75, 1895–1904 (2003).
Hogrebe, A. et al. Benchmarking common quantification strategies for large-scale phosphoproteomics. Nat. Commun. 9, 1045 (2018).
Altelaar, A. F. M. et al. Benchmarking stable isotope labeling based quantitative proteomics. J. Proteom. 88, 14–26 (2013).
Li, Z. et al. Systematic comparison of label-free, metabolic labeling, and isobaric chemical labeling for quantitative proteomics on LTQ orbitrap velos. J. Proteome Res. 11, 1582–1590 (2012).
Venable, J. D., Dong, M. Q., Wohlschlegel, J., Dillin, A. & Yates, J. R. Automated approach for quantitative analysis of complex peptide mixtures from tandem mass spectra. Nat. Methods 1, 39–45 (2004).
Xuan, Y. et al. Standardization and harmonization of distributed multi-center proteotype analysis supporting precision medicine studies. Nat. Commun. 11, 5248 (2020).
Röst, H. L. et al. OpenSWATH enables automated, targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition MS data. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 219–223 (2014).
Principe, S. et al. In-depth proteomic analyses of exosomes isolated from expressed prostatic secretions in urine. Proteomics 13, 1667–1671 (2013).
Rontogianni, S. et al. Proteomic profiling of extracellular vesicles allows for human breast cancer subtyping. Commun. Biol. 2, 325 (2019).
Yang, W., Freeman, M. R. & Kyprianou, N. Personalization of prostate cancer therapy through phosphoproteomics. Nat. Rev. Urol. 15, 483–497 (2018).
Drake, J. M. et al. Phosphoproteome integration reveals patient-specific networks in prostate cancer. Cell 166, 1041–1054 (2016).
Gahmberg, C.G. & Tolvanen, M. Why mammalian cell surface proteins are glycoproteins. Trends Biochem. Sci. 21, 308–311 (1996).
Leitner, A. Enrichment strategies in phosphoproteomics. in Methods in Molecular Biology Vol. 1355 105–121 (Humana Press Inc., 2016).
Riley, N. M., Bertozzi, C. R. & Pitteri, S. J. A pragmatic guide to enrichment strategies for mass spectrometry-based glycoproteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 20, 100029 (2020).
Mertins, P. et al. Reproducible workflow for multiplexed deep-scale proteome and phosphoproteome analysis of tumor tissues by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Nat. Protoc. 13, 1632–1661 (2018).
Huang, P., Li, H., Gao, W., Cai, Z. & Tian, R. A fully integrated spintip-based approach for sensitive and quantitative profiling of region-resolved in vivo brain glycoproteome. Anal. Chem. 91, 9181–9189 (2019).
Leutert, M., Rodríguez-Mias, R. A., Fukuda, N. K. & Villén, J. R2-P2 rapid-robotic phosphoproteomics enables multidimensional cell signaling studies. Mol. Syst. Biol. 15, e9021 (2019).
Zhu, Y. et al. Nanodroplet processing platform for deep and quantitative proteome profiling of 10–100 mammalian cells. Nat. Commun. 9, 882 (2018).
Moggridge, S., Sorensen, P. H., Morin, G. B. & Hughes, C. S. Extending the compatibility of the SP3 paramagnetic bead processing approach for proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 17, 1730–1740 (2018).
Frantzi, M., Latosinska, A., Merseburger, A. S. & Mischak, H. Recent progress in urinary proteome analysis for prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 15, 1539–1554 (2015).
Jackson, H. W. et al. The single-cell pathology landscape of breast cancer. Nature 578, 615–620 (2020).
Rifai, N., Gillette, M. A. & Carr, S. A. Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 971–983 (2006).
Hoofnagle, A. N. & Wener, M. H. The fundamental flaws of immunoassays and potential solutions using tandem mass spectrometry. J. Immunol. Methods 347, 3–11 (2009).
Joshi, A. & Mayr, M. In aptamers they trust: caveats of the SOMAscan biomarker discovery Platform from SomaLogic. Circulation 138, 2482–2485 (2018).
Wang, P., Whiteaker, J. R. & Paulovich, A. G. The evolving role of mass spectrometry in cancer biomarker discovery. Cancer Biol. Ther. 8, 1083–1094 (2009).
Lange, V., Picotti, P., Domon, B. & Aebersold, R. Selected reaction monitoring for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial. Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 222 (2008).
Carr, S. A. & Anderson, L. Protein quantitation through targeted mass spectrometry: the way out of biomarker purgatory? Clin. Chem. 54, 1749–1752 (2008).
Schiess, R., Wollscheid, B. & Aebersold, R. Targeted proteomic strategy for clinical biomarker discovery. Mol. Oncol. 3, 33–44 (2009).
Anderson, N. L. et al. A human proteome detection and quantitation project. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 8, 883–886 (2009).
Mallick, P. et al. Computational prediction of proteotypic peptides for quantitative proteomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 125–131 (2007).
Faserl, K., Sarg, B., Maurer, V. & Lindner, H. H. Exploiting charge differences for the analysis of challenging post-translational modifications by capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 1498, 215–223 (2017).
Lombard-Banek, C., Choi, S. B. & Nemes, P. Single-cell proteomics in complex tissues using microprobe capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry. in Methods in Enzymology Vol. 628 263–292 (Academic Press Inc., 2019).
Carr, S. A. et al. Targeted peptide measurements in biology and medicine: best practices for mass spectrometry-based assay development using a fit-for-purpose approach. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 13, 907–917 (2014).
Virreira Winter, S. et al. Urinary proteome profiling for stratifying patients with familial Parkinson’s disease. EMBO Mol Med. 13, e13257 (2021).
Geyer, P. E. et al. Plasma proteome profiling to detect and avoid sample-related biases in biomarker studies. EMBO Mol. Med. 11, e10427 (2019).
Makarov, A., Denisov, E., Lange, O. & Horning, S. Dynamic range of mass accuracy in LTQ orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer. J. Am. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. 17, 977–982 (2006).
Geyer, P. E., Holdt, L. M., Teupser, D. & Mann, M. Revisiting biomarker discovery by plasma proteomics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 13, 942 (2017).
Annesley, T. M. Ion suppression in mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 49, 1041–1044 (2003).
Hanash, S. M., Pitteri, S. J. & Faca, V. M. Mining the plasma proteome for cancer biomarkers. Nature 452, 571–579 (2008).
Tu, C. et al. Depletion of abundant plasma proteins and limitations of plasma proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 9, 4982–4991 (2010).
Drake, R. R. et al. In-depth proteomic analyses of direct expressed prostatic secretions. J. Proteome Res. 9, 2109–2116 (2010).
Kim, Y. et al. Identification of differentially expressed proteins in direct expressed prostatic secretions of men with organ-confined versus extracapsular prostate cancer. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 11, 1870–1884 (2012).
Drabovich, A. P., Saraon, P., Jarvi, K. & Diamandis, E. P. Seminal plasma as a diagnostic fluid for male reproductive system disorders. Nat. Rev. Urol. 11, 278–288 (2014).
Drake, R. R. et al. Clinical collection and protein properties of expressed prostatic secretions as a source for biomarkers of prostatic disease. J. Proteom. 72, 907–917 (2009).
McNaughton Collins, M., Fowler, F. J., Elliott, D. B., Albertsen, P. C. & Barry, M. J. Diagnosing and treating chronic prostatitis: do urologists use the four-glass test? Urology 55, 403–407 (2000).
Theodorescu, D. et al. Discovery and validation of urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Proteomics Clin. Appl. 2, 556–570 (2008).
Harpole, M., Davis, J. & Espina, V. Current state of the art for enhancing urine biomarker discovery. Expert Rev. Proteom. 13, 609–626 (2016).
Principe, S. et al. Identification of prostate-enriched proteins by in-depth proteomic analyses of expressed prostatic secretions in urine. J. Proteome Res. 11, 2386–2396 (2012).
Pellegrini, K. L. et al. Detection of prostate cancer-specific transcripts in extracellular vesicles isolated from post-DRE urine. Prostate 77, 990–999 (2017).
Kim, Y. et al. Targeted proteomics identifies liquid-biopsy signatures for extracapsular prostate cancer. Nat. Commun. 7, 11906 (2016).
Bussemakers, M. J. et al. DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer 1. Cancer Res. 59, 5975–5979 (1999).
van Niel, G., D’Angelo, G. & Raposo, G. Shedding light on the cell biology of extracellular vesicles. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 19, 213–228 (2018).
Becker, A. et al. Extracellular vesicles in cancer: cell-to-cell mediators of metastasis. Cancer Cell 30, 836–848 (2016).
Overbye, A. et al. Identification of prostate cancer biomarkers in urinary exosomes. Oncotarget 6, 30357–30376 (2015).
Merchant, M. L., Rood, I. M., Deegens, J. K. J. & Klein, J. B. Isolation and characterization of urinary extracellular vesicles: implications for biomarker discovery. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 13, 731–749 (2017).
Füzéry, A. K., Levin, J., Chan, M. M. & Chan, D. W. Translation of proteomic biomarkers into FDA approved cancer diagnostics: Issues and challenges. Clin. Proteom. 10, 13 (2013).
Uhlén, M. et al. The human secretome. Sci. Signal. 12, eaaz0274 (2019).
Sequeiros, T. et al. Targeted proteomics in urinary extracellular vesicles identifies biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Oncotarget 8, 4960–4976 (2017).
Jedinak, A. et al. Novel non-invasive biomarkers that distinguish between benign prostate hyperplasia and prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 15, 259 (2015).
Zhang, M. et al. Combined serum and EPS-urine proteomic analysis using iTRAQ technology for discovery of potential prostate cancer biomarkers. Discov. Med. 22, 281–295 (2016).
Grupp, K. et al. Cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 overexpression is linked to a subset of PTEN-deleted ERG fusion-positive prostate cancers with early biochemical recurrence. Mod. Pathol. 26, 733–742 (2013).
Al Bashir, S. et al. Cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 (CRISP3), ERG and PTEN define a molecular subtype of prostate cancer with implication to patients’ prognosis. J. Hematol. Oncol. 7, 21 (2014).
Macagno, A. et al. Analytical performance of thrombospondin-1 and cathepsin D immunoassays part of a novel CE-IVD marked test as an aid in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. PLoS One 15, e0233442 (2020).
Cima, I. et al. Cancer genetics-guided discovery of serum biomarker signatures for diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3342–3347 (2011).
Pye, H. et al. Evaluation of Proclarix, a prostate cancer risk score, used together with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 278–278 (2020).
Fujita, K. et al. Proteomic analysis of urinary extracellular vesicles from high Gleason score prostate cancer. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–9 (2017).
Gandham, S. et al. Technologies and standardization in research on extracellular vesicles. Trends Biotechnol. 38, 1066–1098 (2020).
Yan, B. et al. iTRAQ-based comparative serum proteomic analysis of prostate cancer patients with or without bone metastasis. J. Cancer 10, 4165–4177 (2019).
Kohli, M. et al. Serum proteomics on the basis of discovery of predictive biomarkers of response to androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer. Clin. Genitourin. Cancer 17, 248–253.e7 (2019).
Ishizuya, Y. et al. The role of actinin-4 (ACTN4) in exosomes as a potential novel therapeutic target in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 523, 588–594 (2020).
Abbatiello, S. E., Mani, D. R., Keshishian, H. & Carr, S. A. Automated detection of inaccurate and imprecise transitions in peptide quantification by multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 56, 291–305 (2010).
Müller, T. et al. Automated sample preparation with SP 3 for low-input clinical proteomics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e911 (2020).
Stadlmann, J. et al. Improved sensitivity in low-input proteomics using micropillar array-based chromatography. Anal. Chem. 91, 14203–14207 (2019).
Zhang, Z. & Chan, D. W. The road from discovery to clinical diagnostics: lessons learned from the first FDA-cleared in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay of proteomic. Biomarkers. 19, 2995–2999 (2010).
Kraus, V. B. Biomarkers as drug development tools: discovery, validation, qualification and use. Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 14, 354–362 (2018).
Raab, S. S. The cost-effectiveness of immunohistochemistry. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 124, 1185–1191 (2000).
Drake, J. M. et al. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer reveals intrapatient similarity and interpatient heterogeneity of therapeutic kinase targets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E4762–E4769 (2013).
Myers, J. S. et al. Proteomic characterization of paired non-malignant and malignant African-American prostate epithelial cell lines distinguishes them by structural proteins. BMC Cancer 17, 480 (2017).
Jarnuczak, A. F. et al. An integrated landscape of protein expression in human cancer. Sci. Data 8, 115 (2021).
Kishan, A. U. et al. Transcriptomic heterogeneity of gleason grade group 5 prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 78, 327–332 (2020).
Guo, T. et al. Multi-region proteome analysis quantifies spatial heterogeneity of prostate tissue biomarkers. Life Sci. Alliance 1, e201800042 (2018).
Keerthikumar, S. et al. ExoCarta: a web-based compendium of exosomal cargo. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 688–692 (2016).
Käll, L., Krogh, A. & Sonnhammer, E. L. L. Advantages of combined transmembrane topology and signal peptide prediction — the Phobius web server. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W429–W432 (2007).
Nielsen, H. Predicting secretory proteins with signaIP. in Methods in Molecular Biology Vol. 1611 59–73 (Humana Press Inc., 2017).
Namekawa, T., Ikeda, K., Horie-Inoue, K. & Inoue, S. Application of prostate cancer models for preclinical study: advantages and limitations of cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and three-dimensional culture of patient-derived cell. Cells 8, 74 (2019).
Huang, X. et al. miRNA-95 mediates radioresistance in tumors by targeting the sphingolipid phosphatase SGPP1. Cancer Res. 73, 6972–6986 (2013).
Ghiam, A. F. et al. Long non-coding RNA urothelial carcinoma associated 1 (UCA1) mediates radiation response in prostate cancer. Oncotarget 8, 4668–4689 (2017).
Höti, N., Shah, P., Hu, Y., Yang, S. & Zhang, H. Proteomics analyses of prostate cancer cells reveal cellular pathways associated with androgen resistance. Proteomics 17, https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201600228 (2017).
Katsogiannou, M. et al. Integrative proteomic and phosphoproteomic profiling of prostate cell lines. PLoS One 14, e0224148 (2019).
Cunningham, D. & You, Z. In vitro and in vivo model systems used in prostate cancer research. J. Biol. Methods 2, e17 (2015).
Ben-David, U. et al. Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response. Nature 560, 325–330 (2018).
Davies, A. H., Wang, Y. & Zoubeidi, A. Patient-derived xenografts: a platform for accelerating translational research in prostate cancer. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 462, 17–24 (2018).
Ben-David, U. et al. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat. Genet. 49, 1567–1575 (2017).
Gao, D. et al. Organoid cultures derived from patients with advanced prostate cancer. Cell 159, 176–187 (2014).
Clevers, H. Modeling development and disease with organoids. Cell 165, 1586–1597 (2016).
Gingrich, J. R. & Greenberg, N. M. A transgenic mouse prostate cancer model. Toxicol. Pathol. 24, 502–504 (1996).
Gingrich, J. R. et al. Metastatic prostate cancer in a transgenic mouse. Cancer Res. 56, 4096–102 (1996).
Gelman, I. H. How the tramp model revolutionized the study of prostate cancer progression. Cancer Res. 76, 6137–6139 (2016).
Pencik, J. et al. STAT3 regulated ARF expression suppresses prostate cancer metastasis. Nat. Commun. 6, 7736 (2015).
Wang, S. et al. Prostate-specific deletion of the murine Pten tumor suppressor gene leads to metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 4, 209–221 (2003).
Zhang, Y. et al. Quantitative proteomics of TRAMP mice combined with bioinformatics analysis reveals that PDGF-B regulatory network plays a key role in prostate cancer progression. J. Proteome Res. 17, 2401–2411 (2018).
Zhang, J. et al. Proteomic and transcriptomic profiling of Pten gene-knockout mouse model of prostate cancer. Prostate 80, 588–605 (2020).
Hensleym, P. J. & Kyprianou, N. Modeling prostate cancer in mice: review limitations and opportunities. J. Androl. 33, 133–144 (2012).
Terp, M. G. & Ditzel, H. J. Application of proteomics in the study of rodent models of cancer. Proteom. Clin. Appl. 8, 640–652 (2014).
Gong, I. Y., Fox, N. S., Huang, V. & Boutros, P. C. Prediction of early breast cancer patient survival using ensembles of hypoxia signatures. PLoS One 13, e0204123 (2018).
Bayani, J. et al. Molecular stratification of early breast cancer identifies drug targets to drive stratified medicine. NPJ Breast Cancer 3, 3 (2017).
Bhandari, V. & Boutros, P. C. Comparing continuous and discrete analyses of breast cancer survival information. Genomics 108, 78–83 (2016).
Lalonde, E. et al. Tumour genomic and microenvironmental heterogeneity for integrated prediction of 5-year biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 15, 1521–1532 (2014).
Lalonde, E. et al. Translating a prognostic DNA genomic classifier into the clinic: retrospective validation in 563 localized prostate tumors. Eur. Urol. 72, 22–31 (2017).
Andor, N., Maley, C. C. & Ji, H. P. Genomic instability in cancer: teetering on the limit of tolerance. Cancer Res. 77, 2179–2185 (2017).
Tarabichi, M. et al. A practical guide to cancer subclonal reconstruction from DNA sequencing. Nat. Methods 18, 144–155 (2021).
Bhandari, V. et al. Molecular landmarks of tumor hypoxia across cancer types. Nat. Genet. 51, 308–318 (2019).
Bhandari, V., Li, C. H., Bristow, R. G. & Boutros, P. C. Divergent mutational processes distinguish hypoxic and normoxic tumours. Nat. Commun. 11, 737 (2020).
Hopkins, J. F. et al. Mitochondrial mutations drive prostate cancer aggression. Nat. Commun. 8, 656 (2017).
Haider, S. et al. Pathway-based subnetworks enable cross-disease biomarker discovery. Nat. Commun. 9, 4746 (2018).
Fox, N. S., Haider, S., Harris, A. L. & Boutros, P. C. Landscape of transcriptomic interactions between breast cancer and its microenvironment. Nat. Commun. 10, 3116 (2019).
Endt, K. et al. Development and clinical testing of individual immunoassays for the quantification of serum glycoproteins to diagnose prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 12, e0181557 (2017).
Steuber, T. et al. Thrombospondin 1 and cathepsin D improve prostate cancer diagnosis by avoiding potentially unnecessary prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 123, 826–833 (2019).
Klocker, H. et al. Development and validation of a novel multivariate risk score to guide biopsy decision for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJUI Compass 1, 15–20 (2020).
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by the National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network (1U01CA214194-01), a Prostate Cancer Canada Discovery Grant (400398) and a Canadian Cancer Society Impact Grant (705649). A.K. was supported by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and a Paul STARITA Graduate Student Fellowship. L.Y.L. was supported by a CIHR Vanier Award. This work was supported by the NIH/NCI under award number P30CA016042.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors made substantial contributions to discussions of content, wrote the article and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Urology thanks K. Rodland, P. Guedes de Pinho and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Related links
Clinical Proteomic Tumour Analysis Consortium: https://proteomics.cancer.gov/programs/cptac
The Cancer Genome Atlas: https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/organization/ccg/research/structural-genomics/tcga
The Human Protein Atlas: https://www.proteinatlas.org/
Glossary
- Protein abundance
-
A measure of the number of proteins in a sample, estimated from direct measurements of peptide abundance.
- Mass spectrometry
-
(MS). An analytical technique that separates ions by mass:charge ratio in a mass analyser.
- Proteomics
-
The large-scale study of proteomes, which are sets of proteins produced in a biological context such as by a cell, tissue or organism.
- Shotgun proteomics
-
An untargeted workflow for identifying and quantifying proteins by mass spectrometry via proteolytic digestion of proteins into peptides.
- Dynamic range
-
In mass spectrometry, this term is the range of protein abundances in a sample.
- Precursor ion
-
Intact ions that later dissociate into smaller fragment ions.
- Fragment ion
-
An ion that is the product of fragmentation. For peptides, fragment ions are produced from fragmentation at the peptide backbone.
- Data-dependent acquisition
-
(DDA). A mass-spectrometry acquisition method in which the top N most intense peptides are selected for fragmentation.
- Data-independent acquisition
-
(DIA). A mass-spectrometry acquisition method in which all peptides within a given mass window (such as 15–50 m/z) are selected for fragmentation. Peptides in a selected mass range are fragmented using sequential windows.
- Selected reaction monitoring/multiple reaction monitoring
-
(SRM/MRM). A targeted mass spectrometry method that sequentially isolates and records pre-selected fragment ion masses from a peptide.
- Triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer
-
A tandem mass spectrometer consisting of two quadrupole mass analysers arranged sequentially for mass isolation with an additional quadrupole in the middle that is used for collision-induced dissociation.
- Parallel reaction monitoring
-
(PRM). A targeted mass spectrometry method that isolates and records all fragment ion masses from a peptide.
- Orbitrap mass analyser
-
An ion-trap mass analyser that detects m/z signals by oscillating ions around a cylindrical electrode with tapered ends.
- Glycoproteomics
-
The large-scale study of the glycoproteome, the set of glycosylated proteins, by selective enrichment of N-glycosylated or O-glycosylated peptides.
- Patient-derived xenografts
-
(PDX). Tumours grown from the implantation of a patient’s tumour cells into immunodeficient or immunocompromised mice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khoo, A., Liu, L.Y., Nyalwidhe, J.O. et al. Proteomic discovery of non-invasive biomarkers of localized prostate cancer using mass spectrometry. Nat Rev Urol 18, 707–724 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-021-00500-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-021-00500-1
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Associations between genetically predicted concentrations of plasma proteins and the risk of prostate cancer
BMC Cancer (2024)
-
Machine learning pipeline to analyze clinical and proteomics data: experiences on a prostate cancer case
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2024)
-
Prostate cancer reshapes the secreted and extracellular vesicle urinary proteomes
Nature Communications (2024)
-
Prostate cancer biomarkers: from early diagnosis to precision treatment
Clinical and Translational Oncology (2024)
-
Use of MS-GUIDE for identification of protein biomarkers for risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer
Clinical Proteomics (2022)