MALDI-TOF-MS serum protein profiling for developing diagnostic models and identifying serum markers for discogenic low back pain
1 Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Medical College of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710061, China
2 Department of Sports Injury, Hong-Hui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University College of Medicine, Xi’an 710054, China
3 Key Laboratory of Environment and Genes Related to Diseases, Ministry of Education, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710061, China
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:193 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-193Published: 2 June 2014
The identification of the cause of chronic low back pain (CLBP) represents a great challenge to orthopedists due to the controversy over the diagnosis of discogenic low back pain (DLBP) and the existence of a number of cases of CLBP of unknown origin. This study aimed to develop diagnostic models to distinguish DLBP from other forms of CLBP and to identify serum biomarkers for DLBP.
Serum samples were collected from patients with DLBP, chronic lumbar disc herniation (LDH), or CLBP of unknown origin, and healthy controls (N), and randomly divided into a training set (n = 30) and a blind test set (n = 30). Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry was performed for protein profiling of these samples. After the discriminative ability of two most significantly differential peaks from each two groups was assessed using scatter plots, classification models were developed using differential peptide peaks to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy. The identity of peptides corresponding to three representative differential peaks was analyzed.
The fewest statistically significant differential peaks were identified between DLBP and CLBP (3), followed by CLBP vs. N (5), DLBP vs. N (9), LDH vs. CLBP (20), DLBP vs. LDH (23), and LDH vs. N (43). The discriminative ability of two most significantly differential peaks was poor in classifying DLBP vs. CLBP but good in classifying DLBP vs. LDH. The accuracy of models for classification of DLBP vs. CLBP was not very high in the blind test (forecasting ability, 67.24%; sensitivity, 70%), although a higher accuracy was observed for classification of DLBP vs. LDH and LDH vs. N (forecasting abilities, ~90%; sensitivities, >90%). A further investigation of three representative differential peaks led to the identification of two peaks as peptides of complement C3, and one peak as a human fibrinogen peptide.
Our findings benefit not only the diagnosis of CLBP but also the understanding of the differences between different forms of DLBP. The ability to distinguish between different causes of CLBP and the identification of serum biomarkers may be of great value to diagnose different causes of DLBP and predict treatment efficacy.