International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1287–1297 | Cite as

Protein biomarkers in exfoliated cells collected from the human rectal mucosa: implications for colorectal disease detection and monitoring

  • Neil Anderson
  • Ibnauf Suliman
  • Tatiana Bandaletova
  • Austin Obichere
  • Rupert Lywood
  • Alexandre LoktionovEmail author
Original Article



Colorectal disease biomarkers in stool are actively explored, but instability of biomolecules in faeces constitutes a problem. Collection of exfoliated cells from the surface of the rectal mucosa provides an alternative to stool-based methods. We aimed to develop an original approach allowing preservation and quantification of protein biomarkers in exfoliated material and tested it in a pilot clinical study.


A novel method of cell and protein preservation in ammonium sulphate-rich buffers was developed using cultured human cells and applied to exfoliated cell samples collected from 139 faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive patients prior to colonoscopies. Protein biomarkers comprising calprotectin, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN), dimeric pyruvate kinase type M2 (M2PK), soluble cytokeratin-18, d-dimer and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with parallel cytological and immunocytochemical analysis.


Long-term preservation of cells and their protein constituents at ambient temperature was achieved using buffers containing saturated ammonium sulphate. Application of this approach to exfoliated cell samples allowed consistent protein quantification. Calprotectin, EDN, M2PK, soluble cytokeratin 18 and d-dimer showed dramatic increase in a few cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) detected among trial participants. Cytological signs of inflammation were also present in these samples.


Application of exfoliated cells collected from the surface of the rectal mucosa provides a reliable method for quantifying protein biomarkers of gastrointestinal diseases. Our preliminary results obtained in a limited number of cases indicate that the approach might be especially useful for IBD diagnosis and monitoring, but further studies are needed to assess its diagnostic value.


Exfoliated colonic cells Protein biomarkers Colon tumours Inflammatory bowel disease 



The study was funded by L&L Research partnership LLP.


T. Bandaletova, R. Lywood and A. Loktionov may have a potential financial conflict of interest, being shareholders of Origin Sciences limited.


  1. 1.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroentorology 134:1570–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jankowski JA, Odze RD (2009) Biomarkers in gastroenterology: between hope and hype comes histopathology. Am J Gastroenterol 104:1093–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahlquist DA (2010) Molecular detection of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 138:2127–2139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P (2006) Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 55:426–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sutherland AD, Gearry RB, Frizelle FA (2008) Review of fecal biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1283–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foell D, Wittkowski H, Roth J (2009) Monitoring disease activity by stool analyses: from occult blood to molecular markers of intestinal inflammation and damage. Gut 58:859–868PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitney D, Skoletsky J, Moore K et al (2004) Enhanced retrieval of DNA from human fecal samples results in improved performance of colorectal cancer screening test. J Mol Diagn 6:386–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olson J, Whitney DH, Durkee K, Shuber AP (2005) DNA stabilization is critical for maximizing performance of fecal DNA-based colorectal cancer tests. Diagn Mol Pathol 14:183–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Røseth AG, Fagerhol MK, Aadland E, Schjønsby H (1992) Assessment of the neutrophil dominating protein calprotectin in feces. A methodologic study. Scand J Gastroenterol 27:793–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loktionov A (2007) Cell exfoliation in the human colon: myth, reality and implications for colorectal cancer screening. Int J Cancer 120:2281–2289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loktionov A, Bandaletova T, Llewelyn AH et al (2009) Colorectal cancer detection by measuring DNA from exfoliated colonocytes obtained by direct contact with rectal mucosa. Int J Oncol 34:301–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loktionov A, Ferrett CG, Gibson JJS et al (2010) A case–control study of colorectal cancer detection by quantification of DNA isolated from directly collected exfoliated colonocytes. Int J Cancer 126:1910–1919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wallin U, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B, Loktionov A, Påhlman L (2010) Can DNA sampling from the rectal mucosa be a novel tool for the detection of colorectal cancer? Int J Colorectal Dis 25:1071–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Konikoff MR, Denson LA (2006) Role of fecal calprotectin as a biomarker of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 12:524–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Von Roon AC, Karamountzos L, Purkayastha S et al (2007) Diagnostic precision of fecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal malignancy. Am J Gastroenterol 102:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langhorst J, Elsenbruch S, Koelzer J et al (2008) Noninvasive markers in the assessment of intestinal inflammation in inflammatory bowel diseases: performance of fecal lactoferrin, calprotectin, and PMN-elastase, CRP, and clinical indices. Am J Gastroenterol 103:162–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Rheenen PF, Van de Vijver E, Fidler V (2010) Faecal calprotectin for screening of patients with suspected inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic meta-analysis. BMJ 341:c3369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson CG, Sangfelt P, Wagner M et al (2007) Fecal levels of leukocyte markers reflect disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 67:810–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner M, Peterson CGB, Ridefelt P et al (2008) Fecal markers of inflammation used as surrogate markers for treatment outcome in relapsing inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 14:5584–5589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saitoh O, Kojima K, Sugi K et al (1999) Fecal eosinophil granule-derived proteins reflect disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 94:3513–3520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kapel N, Roman C, Caldari D et al (2005) Fecal tumor necrosis factor-alpha and calprotectin as differential diagnostic markers for severe diarrhea of small infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 41:396–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardt PD, Mazurek S, Toepler M et al (2004) Faecal tumour M2 pyruvate kinase: a new, sensitive screening tool for colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 91:980–984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haug U, Rothenbacher D, Wente MN et al (2007) Tumour M2-PK as a stool marker for colorectal cancer: comparative analysis in a large sample of unselected older adults vs colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 96:1329–1334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koss K, Maxton D, Jankowski JA (2008) Faecal dimeric M2 pyruvate kinase in colorectal cancer and polyps correlates with tumour staging and surgical intervention. Colorectal Dis 10:244–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeffery J, Lewis SJ, Ayling RM (2009) Fecal dimeric M2-pyruvate kinase (tumor M2-PK) in the differential diagnosis of functional and organic bowel disorders. Inflamm Bowel Dis 15:1630–1634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statistics 6:65–70Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burgess RR (2009) Protein precipitation techniques. Methods Enzymol 463:331–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schoepher AM, Trummler M, Seeholzer P, Criblez DH, Seibold F (2007) Accuracy of four fecal assays in the diagnosis of colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1697–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chung-Faye G, Hayee B, Maestranzi S et al (2007) Fecal M2-pyruvate kinase (M2-PK): a novel marker of intestinal inflammation. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13:1374–1378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costa F, Mumolo MG, Ceccarelli L et al (2005) Calprotectin is a stronger predictive marker of relapse in ulcerative colitis than in Crohn’s disease. Gut 54:364–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Murch S (2006) Allergy and intestinal dysmotility—evidence of genuine causal linkage? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 22:664–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haug U, Hundt S, Brenner H (2008) Sensitivity and specificity of faecal tumour M2 pyruvate kinase for detection of colorectal adenomas in a large screening study. Br J Cancer 99:133–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turner D, Leach ST, Mack D et al (2010) Faecal calprotectin, lactoferrin, M2-pyruvate kinase and S100A12 in severe ulcerative colitis: a prospective multicentre comparison of predicting outcomes and monitoring response. Gut 59:1207–1212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suzuki T, Higgins PJ, Crawford DR (2000) Control selection for RNA quantitation. Biotechniques 29:332–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mankertz J, Schulzke JD (2007) Altered permeability in inflammatory bowel disease: pathophysiology and clinical implications. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 23:379–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Anderson
    • 1
  • Ibnauf Suliman
    • 2
  • Tatiana Bandaletova
    • 1
  • Austin Obichere
    • 2
  • Rupert Lywood
    • 3
    • 4
  • Alexandre Loktionov
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.L&L Research Partnership LLPCambridgeUK
  2. 2.University College HospitalLondonUK
  3. 3.L&L Research Partnership LLPLondonUK
  4. 4.Origin Sciences LimitedLondonUK

Personalised recommendations