4.7 Article

B-Cell Receptor Epitope Recognition Correlates With the Clinical Course of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Journal

CANCER
Volume 117, Issue 9, Pages 1891-1900

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25755

Keywords

chronic lymphocytic leukemia; B-cell receptor; epitope recognition; polyreactivity; phage display

Categories

Funding

  1. Josea Carreras Leukemia-Foundation
  2. German Cancer Aid
  3. University of Texas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: B-cell receptors (BCRs) and their recognition of specific epitopes may play a pivotal role in the development and progression of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, the authors set up a model system to explore epitope reactivity and its clinical relevance in CLL. METHODS: Epitope-mimicking peptides were selected from phage display libraries on 6 CLL BCRs from randomly chosen patients. The binding of the 6 index epitope mimics was evaluated in a set of 100 unrelated CLL samples. Epitope recognition patterns were correlated with the clinical course of the disease. RESULTS: Surprisingly, all CLL samples recognized 1 or several index epitopes, and some revealed marked polyreactivity. Patients with CLL who expressed BCRs that reacted with >= 5 epitope mimics had a significantly worse clinical course than less polyreactive patients (median time to first treatment, 24 months vs 102 months). This effect was independent of otherwise known prognostic markers. CONCLUSIONS: The authors introduced a system with which to model epitope reactivity of CLL BCRs without previous knowledge of potential antigens. The findings indicated that a polyreactive epitope recognition pattern may be a determinant of an aggressive clinical course in this disease. This further emphasizes the functional and prognostic relevance of BCR epitope recognition in CLL. Cancer 2011;117:1891-900. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available