Evaluation of novel serum biomarkers and the proteomic differences of endometriosis and adenomyosis using MALDI-TOF–MS

Background Both endometriosis and adenomyosis are common benign gynecological diseases. This study aimed to find the novel noninvasive, biochemical diagnostic markers for detection of endometriosis and adenomyosis, and evaluate the correlation of these two diseases at the protein level.

Serum samples from patients with endometriosis or adenomyosis were compared with control groups to detect specific serum biomarkers and to explore the different protein fingerprint of endometriosis and adenomyosis using MALDI-TOF–MS. Result(s) There were 13 protein peaks abnormally expressed in endometriosis as well as twelve in adenomyosis compared with control groups (P < 0.05). And five-peak mass was found downregulated significantly both in the women with endometriosis and adenomyosis. The common diagnostic model of endometriosis and adenomyosis we set up had a lower sensitivity and specificity than the separate diagnostic model of these two diseases. Conclusion(s) MALDI-TOF–MS technology plays an important role in screening the diagnostic biomarkers of endometriosis and adenomyosis. And our study found the correlation between endometriosis and adenomyosis in protein fingerprint and it is hard to separate the endometriosis from adenomyosis with the serum biomarkers. Similar content being viewed by others

Thomas EJ (1993) Diagnosis and investigation of endometriosis. Current Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993(3):128–132 Mohamed KM, Anthony HT, James HP et al (2010) Enhanced invasion of stromal cells from adenomyosis in a three-dimensional coculture model is augmented by the presence of myocytes from affected uteri. Fertil Steril 97(4):2547–2551 Wang PH, Su WH et al (2009) Adenomyosis and its variance: adenomyoma and female fertility. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 48(3):232–238 Kitawaki Jo (2006) Adenomyosis: the pathophysiology of an oestrogen-dependent disease. Best Practice and Research 20(4):493–502 Brosens J, Timmerman D, Starzinkski PA et al (2003) Noninvasive diagnosis of endometriosis: the role of imaging and markers. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 30:95–114 Irene TG, Gabriela B, Nadja T et al (2010) Endometriosis research: animal models for the study of a complex disease. J Reprod Immunol 86:141–147 Chen FP, Song YK, Lee N et al (1998) The use of serum CA125 as a marker for endometriosis in patient with dysmenorrheal for monitoring therapy and for recurrence of endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:665–670 Zhang H, Niu YD, Feng J et al (2006) Use of proteomic analysis of endometriosis to identify different protein expression in patients with endometriosis versus normal controls. Fertil Steril 86(2):274–282 Kang XX, Xu Y, Wu XY et al (2005) Proteomic fingerprints for potential application to early diagnosis of server acute respiratory syndrome. Clin Chem 51(1):54–64 Zhang X, Leung SM, Morris CR, Shigenaga MK (2004) Evaluation of a novel, integrated approach using functionalized magnetic beads, bench-top MALDI-TOF-MS with prestructured sample supports, and pattern recognition software for profiling potential biomarkers in human plasma. J Biomol Tech 15:167–175 Wang QT, Li YZ, Liang YF, Hu CJ, Zhai YH, Zhao GF, Zhang J, Li N, Ni AP, Chen WM, Xu Y (2009) Construction of a multiple myeloma diagnostic model by magnetic bead-based MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry of serum and pattern recognition software. Anat Rec 292:604–610 Have S, Fraser I, Markham R et al (2007) Proteomic analysis of protein expression in the endometrium of women with endometriosis. Proteomics Clin Appl 1:1243–1251 Monika M, Kristina S, Daniela O et al (2009) Mass spectrometry and serum pattern profiling for analyzing the individual risk for endometriosis: promising insights? Fertil Steril 91(6):2331–2337 Jing JH, Qiao YH, Suginami H et al (2009) Two novel serum biomarkers for endometriosis screened by surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry and their change after laparoscopic removal of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 86(2):1221–1227 Cleophas MK, Attila N, Olivier G et al (2011) Evaluation of endometrial biomarkers for semi-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 95(4):1338–1343 Liang W, Wei Z, Lin M et al (2008) Identifying biomarkers of endometriosis using serum protein fingerprinting and artificial neural networks. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101:253–258 Xiaoyan D et al (2010) Detection of mitochondrial biomarkers in eutopic endometria of endometriosis using surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Fertil Steril 94(7):2528–2530 Zhang H, Feng J, Chang XH et al (2009) Effect of surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry on identifying biomarkers of endometriosis. Chin Med J 122(4):373–376 Amelie F, Peter S, Cleophas MK, et al (2010) TRIzol treatment of secretory phase endometrium allows combined proteomic and mRNA microarray analysis of the same sample in women with and without endometriosis. Reproductive Bio Endocri 8(123) Zheng YH, Zhang JH, Leng JH et al (2009) Establishment of endometriosis diagnostic model using plasma protein profiling. Chin J Obstet Gynecol 44(8):601–604 Nina CP, Geetanjali S, Rahul G et al (2010) Spot-ting differences between the ectopic and eutopic endometrium of endometriosis patients. Fertil Steril 94(6):1964–1971 Hu CJ, Li YZ, Zhao GF et al (2008) Screening for specific biomarkers in serum for diagnosis primary billiard cirrhosis using proteomic fingerprint technology. World J Gastroenterol 16(3):277–283 Conflict of interest None. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Long, X., Jiang, P., Zhou, L. et al. Evaluation of novel serum biomarkers and the proteomic differences of endometriosis and adenomyosis using MALDI-TOF–MS. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288, 201–205 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2700-0 Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2700-0