RESUMEN
The vast majority of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) suffer cachexia. Although cachexia results from concurrent loss of adipose and muscle tissue, most studies focus on muscle alone. Emerging data demonstrate the prognostic value of fat loss in cachexia. Here we sought to identify the muscle and adipose gene profiles and pathways regulated in cachexia. Matched rectus abdominis muscle and subcutaneous adipose tissue were obtained at surgery from patients with benign conditions (n = 11) and patients with PDAC (n = 24). Self-reported weight loss and body composition measurements defined cachexia status. Gene profiling was done using ion proton sequencing. Results were queried against external datasets for validation. 961 DE genes were identified from muscle and 2000 from adipose tissue, demonstrating greater response of adipose than muscle. In addition to known cachexia genes such as FOXO1, novel genes from muscle, including PPP1R8 and AEN correlated with cancer weight loss. All the adipose correlated genes including SCGN and EDR17 are novel for PDAC cachexia. Pathway analysis demonstrated shared pathways but largely non-overlapping genes in both tissues. Age related muscle loss predominantly had a distinct gene profiles compared to cachexia. This analysis of matched, externally validate gene expression points to novel targets in cachexia.
RESUMEN
Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) suffer debilitating and deadly weight loss, known as cachexia. Development of therapies requires biomarkers to diagnose, and monitor cachexia; however, no such markers are in use. Via Somascan, we measured ~1300 plasma proteins in 30 patients with PDAC vs. 11 controls. We found 60 proteins specific to local PDAC, 46 to metastatic, and 67 to presence of >5% cancer weight loss (FC ≥ |1.5|, p ≤ 0.05). Six were common for cancer stage (Up: GDF15, TIMP1, IL1RL1; Down: CCL22, APP, CLEC1B). Four were common for local/cachexia (C1R, PRKCG, ELANE, SOST: all oppositely regulated) and four for metastatic/cachexia (SERPINA6, PDGFRA, PRSS2, PRSS1: all consistently changed), suggesting that stage and cachexia status might be molecularly separable. We found 71 proteins that correlated with cachexia severity via weight loss grade, weight loss, skeletal muscle index and radiodensity (r ≥ |0.50|, p ≤ 0.05), including some known cachexia mediators/markers (LEP, MSTN, ALB) as well as novel proteins (e.g., LYVE1, C7, F2). Pathway, correlation, and upstream regulator analyses identified known (e.g., IL6, proteosome, mitochondrial dysfunction) and novel (e.g., Wnt signaling, NK cells) mechanisms. Overall, this study affords a basis for validation and provides insights into the processes underpinning cancer cachexia.