Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 19, 2026
Two-dimensional Gel Electrophoresis Coupled with Mass Spectrometry Methods for an Analysis of Human Pituitary Adenoma Tissue Proteome
Published on: April 2, 2018
Heterogeneity analysis of the proteomes in clinically nonfunctional pituitary adenomas
Background:
Clinically nonfunctional pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) without any clinical elevation of hormone and with a difficulty in its early-stage diagnosis are highly heterogeneous with different hormone expressions in NFPA tissues, including luteinizing hormone (LH)-positive, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH)-positive, LH/FSH-positive, and negative (NF). Elucidation of molecular mechanisms and discovery of biomarkers common and specific to those different subtypes of NFPAs will benefit NFPA patients in early-stage diagnosis and individualized treatment.
Methods:
Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DGE) and PDQuest image analyses were used to compare proteomes of different NFPA subtypes (NF-, LH-, FSH-, and LH/FSH-positive) relative to control pituitaries (Con). Differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were characterized with mass spectrometry (MS). Each set of DEPs in four NFPA subtypes was evaluated with overlap analysis and signaling pathway network analysis with comparison to determine any DEP and pathway network that are common and specific to each NFPA subtype.
Results:
A total of 93 differential protein-spots were determined with comparison of each NFPA type (NF-, LH-, FSH-, and LH/FSH-positive) versus control pituitaries. A total of 76 protein-spots were MS-identified (59 DEPs in NF vs. Con; 65 DEPs in LH vs. Con; 63 DEPs in FSH vs. Con; and 55 DEPs in LH/FSH vs. Con). A set of DEPs and pathway network data were common and specific to each NFPA subtype. Four important common pathway systems included MAPK-signaling abnormality, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cell-cycle dysregulation. However, these pathway systems were, in fact, different among four NFPA subtypes with different protein-expression levels of most of nodes, different protein profiles, and different pathway network profiles.
Conclusions:
These result data demonstrate that common and specific DEPs and pathway networks exist in four NFPA subtypes, and clarify proteome heterogeneity of four NFPA subtypes. Those findings will help to elucidate molecular mechanisms of NFPAs, and discover protein biomarkers to effectively manage NFPA patients towards personalized medicine.
