The promise of deep urine proteomics for diagnosis of cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases

INTRODUCTION: Urine offers a noninvasive and low-cost source of disease biomarkers, yet most proteomic studies have targeted single conditions. Using deep proteomic profiling and machine learning, we evaluated whether urinary protein signatures distinguish early-stage cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases from healthy controls. METHODS: This case-control diagnostic accuracy study analyzed urine samples from the Ukraine Association of Biobank (UAB), collected during routine medical check-ups. The study included 22 patients each with kidney, bladder, melanoma, prostate, ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers; 22 with multiple sclerosis (MS); 22 with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH); and 66 healthy controls, yielding 264 samples analyzed in September 2023. Proteomic assays were performed using the Olink Explore 3072 platform, with laboratory personnel blinded to disease status. Urine proteomes were profiled to identify disease-specific protein signatures. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of multiprotein urine panels for each disease compared with healthy controls, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with sensitivity and specificity calculated at a prespecified threshold. RESULTS: Expected sex‑specific differences (KLK3, MSMB higher in males; KLK8, KLK13 higher in females) supported assay validity. Three expression patterns were observed: (1) few strong, symmetric signals in melanoma and endometrial cancer; (2) asymmetry with many up‑regulated proteins in cervical, ovarian, and prostate cancers and in MS; and (3) broad up‑regulation in kidney and bladder cancers and in MASH. Multiprotein models outperformed single proteins, plateauing at five to seven. Maximum AUCs ranged from 0.88 (MS) to 0.98 0.97 (ovarian cancer), with AUCs ≥ 0.95 for seven of nine diseases. Some proteins (e.g., C9orf40, PPY) showed cross‑disease importance. CONCLUSIONS: Urine proteomics identified disease‑related signals across cancer and metabolic conditions and may enable accurate, noninvasive classification using multiprotein panels, but given the exploratory design and its limitations, the reported accuracies should be regarded as upper-bound estimates requiring prospective validation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354808
Primary Topic
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The promise of deep urine proteomics for diagnosis of cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases

Bogdan Budnik, Hossein Amirkhani, Ashkan Afshin, Saharnaz Nedjat et al.
PLoS ONE
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
article

The promise of deep urine proteomics for diagnosis of cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases

Bogdan Budnik, Hossein Amirkhani, Ashkan Afshin, Saharnaz Nedjat, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar, Klaus Weinberger
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Urine offers a noninvasive and low-cost source of disease biomarkers, yet most proteomic studies have targeted single conditions. Using deep proteomic profiling and machine learning, we evaluated whether urinary protein signatures distinguish early-stage cancer, neurologic, and metabolic diseases from healthy controls. METHODS: This case-control diagnostic accuracy study analyzed urine samples from the Ukraine Association of Biobank (UAB), collected during routine medical check-ups. The study included 22 patients each with kidney, bladder, melanoma, prostate, ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers; 22 with multiple sclerosis (MS); 22 with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH); and 66 healthy controls, yielding 264 samples analyzed in September 2023. Proteomic assays were performed using the Olink Explore 3072 platform, with laboratory personnel blinded to disease status. Urine proteomes were profiled to identify disease-specific protein signatures. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of multiprotein urine panels for each disease compared with healthy controls, expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with sensitivity and specificity calculated at a prespecified threshold. RESULTS: Expected sex‑specific differences (KLK3, MSMB higher in males; KLK8, KLK13 higher in females) supported assay validity. Three expression patterns were observed: (1) few strong, symmetric signals in melanoma and endometrial cancer; (2) asymmetry with many up‑regulated proteins in cervical, ovarian, and prostate cancers and in MS; and (3) broad up‑regulation in kidney and bladder cancers and in MASH. Multiprotein models outperformed single proteins, plateauing at five to seven. Maximum AUCs ranged from 0.88 (MS) to 0.98 0.97 (ovarian cancer), with AUCs ≥ 0.95 for seven of nine diseases. Some proteins (e.g., C9orf40, PPY) showed cross‑disease importance. CONCLUSIONS: Urine proteomics identified disease‑related signals across cancer and metabolic conditions and may enable accurate, noninvasive classification using multiprotein panels, but given the exploratory design and its limitations, the reported accuracies should be regarded as upper-bound estimates requiring prospective validation.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(7)
Novel (United States) (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.