4.4 Article

Fragmented CagA Protein is Highly Immunoreactive in Japanese Patients

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 187-192

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2011.00930.x

关键词

antigenic epitope; ethnic difference; fragmented CagA; Helicobacter pylori; immunoassay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: High-molecular-weight cell-associated proteins (HM-CAP) assay is the most popular serological immunoassay worldwide and has been developed from US isolates as the antigens. The accuracy is reduced when the sera are from adults and children in East Asia including Japan. To overcome the reduced accuracy, an enzyme immunoassay using Japanese strainderived HM-CAP (JHM-CAP) was developed, in which the antigens were prepared by exactly the same procedure as HM-CAP. The performance of JHM-CAP was better than that of HM-CAP in Japanese adults as well as in children. The higher sensitivity was because of the presence of 100-kDa protein that was absent in the preparation of HM-CAP antigen. Materials and Methods: Immunoblot analysis and peptide mass fingerprinting methods were used to identify the distinctive 100-kDa protein present in JHM-CAP antigens. The peptide sequence and identification were analyzed by Mascot Search on the database of Helicobacter pylori. The identified protein was confirmed by immunoblot with a specific antibody and inhibition assay by the sera. Results: The distinctive 100-kDa protein was a fragment of CagA derived from Japanese clinical isolates, and the sera of Japanese patients had strongly reacted to the protein, probably to the exposed epitope on the fragmented CagA. The fragmentation of CagA had occurred in the process of antigen preparation in Japanese isolates, not in US isolates even under the same preparation. Conclusion: The distinctive 100-kDa protein was a fragment of CagA protein of H. pylori derived from Japanese clinical isolates, and Japanese patients including children are likely to react strongly to the exposed epitopes on fragmented CagA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据