4.8 Article

Identification of Nectin-4 Oncoprotein as a Diagnostic and Therapeutic Target for Lung Cancer

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 69, Issue 16, Pages 6694-6703

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0016

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gene expression profile analysis of lung cancers revealed the transactivation of an immunoglobulin-like molecule Nectin-4 in the majority of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Immunohistochemical staining of 422 NSCLCs showed that a high level of Nectin-4 expression was associated with poor prognosis for NSCLC patients (P < 0.0001), and multivariate analysis confirmed its independent prognostic value (P < 0.0001). We established an ELISA to measure serum Nectin-4 and found that serum Nectin-4 levels were significantly higher in NSCLC patients than in healthy volunteers. The proportion of the serum Nectin-4-positive cases was 88 of 164 (53.7%) NSCLCs, whereas only 3 of 131 (2.3%) healthy volunteers were falsely diagnosed as positive, which was superior to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin 19-fragment (CYFRA21-1) in sensitivity and specificity. A combined ELISA for both Nectin-4 and CEA increased sensitivity and classified 65.0% of lung adenocarcinomas as positive with false-positive rate of 4.6%. The use of both Nectin-4 and CYFRA21-1 classified 68.3% of lung squamous cell carcinomas as positive with false-positive rate of 6.1%. Treatment of lung cancer cells with small interfering RNAs against Nectin-4 suppressed its expression and cell growth. In addition, exogenous expression of Nectin-4 increased the lamellipodia formation and the invasive ability of mammalian cells through activation of small GTPase Rac1. Nectin-4 might play a significant role in lung carcinogenesis, and it should be a new candidate serum and tissue biomarker, as well as a therapeutic target. [Cancer Res 2009;69(16):6694-703]

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available