Back to all available

An autoantibody signature targeting cuproptosis-related proteins for non-small cell lung cancer detection and prognosis

epidemiology
oncology
translational-medicine

Abstract

Background. Autoantibodies against tumor-associated antigens in the plasma are valuable biomarkers for early cancer detection and prognostic stratification. DLAT (Dihydrolipoamide Acetyltransferase) and LIAS (Lipoic Acid Synthase), two key cuproptosis regulators, were abnormally expressed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are potential biomarkers for clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to explore the significance of anti-DLAT and anti-LIAS autoantibodies in the clinical diagnosis and prognosis of NSCLC.

Methods. The levels of plasma anti-DLAT and anti-LIAS autoantibodies were detected by ELISA. Their diagnostic value was evaluated in 340 NC (normal controls), 260 BPN (patients with benign pulmonary nodules), and 340 NSCLC. Additionally, the prognostic value of those autoantibodies was analyzed in 354 NSCLC patients.

Results. The levels of anti-DLAT and anti-LIAS autoantibodies were significantly elevated in NSCLC compared to BPN and NC. Those autoantibodies distinguished NSCLC from NC with AUCs of 0.712 (95% CI: 0.669-0.756) and 0.668 (95% CI: 0.623-0.714), respectively. To enhance efficacy, a multi-autoantibody signature (anti-DLAT/LIAS/FDX1/COPT1) was constructed, significantly improving discrimination (NSCLC vs NC: AUC=0.805; NSCLC vs BPN: AUC=0.751). Prognostic analysis indicated that anti-LIAS autoantibody served as an independent predictor of outcome (HR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.01-1.99).

Conclusions. These findings demonstrated the clinical utility of the autoantibody signature targeting cuproptosis-related proteins for NSCLC diagnosis and prognosis.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].