Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Classification of HER2 Receptor Status in Breast Cancer Tissues by MALDI Imaging Mass Spectrometry

Open access
Rauser, Sandra, Marquardt, Claudio, Balluff, Benjamin, Deininger, Sören-Oliver, Albers, Christian, Belau, Eckhard, Hartmer, Ralf, Suckau, Detlev, Specht, Katja, Ebert, Matthias Philip, Schmitt, Manfred, Aubele, Michaela, Höfler, Heinz, Walch, Axel·2010·Journal of Proteome Research
DOI 10.1021/pr901008d
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Clinical laboratory testing for HER2 status in breast cancer tissues is critically important for therapeutic decision making. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) is a powerful tool for investigating proteins through the direct and morphology-driven analysis of tissue sections. We hypothesized that MALDI-IMS may determine HER2 status directly from breast cancer tissues. Breast cancer tissues (n = 48) predefined for HER2 status were subjected to MALDI-IMS, and protein profiles were obtained through direct analysis of tissue sections. Protein identification was performed by tissue microextraction and fractionation followed by top-down tandem mass spectrometry. A discovery and an independent validation set were used to predict HER2 status by applying proteomic classification algorithms. We found that specific protein/peptide expression changes strongly correlated with the HER2 overexpression. Among these, we identified m/z 8404 as cysteine-rich intestinal protein 1. The proteomic signature was able to accurately define HER2-positive from HER2-negative tissues, achieving high values for sensitivity of 83%, for specificity of 92%, and an overall accuracy of 89%. Our results underscore the potential of MALDI-IMS proteomic algorithms for morphology-driven tissue diagnostics such as HER2 testing and show that MALDI-IMS can reveal biologically significant molecular details from tissues which are not limited to traditional high-abundance proteins.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/pr901008d

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Rauser, S., Marquardt, C., Balluff, B., Deininger, S.-O., Albers, C., Belau, E., Hartmer, R., Suckau, D., Specht, K., Ebert, M. P., Schmitt, M., Aubele, M., Höfler, H., & Walch, A.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2010-03-05
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
1854-1863
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
DOI
10.1021/pr901008d
OpenAlex
W2057888153
Cited by
276
References
33
FWCI
16.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.