4.6 Article

Detection of N-glycolylneuraminic acid biomarkers in sera from patients with ovarian cancer using an engineered N-glycolylneuraminic acid-specific lectin SubB2M

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.11.001

关键词

Ovarian cancer; Biomarker; N-glycolylneuraminic acid; Neu5Gc; Lectin; Diagnostic

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program [1071659]
  2. NHMRC Project Grant [1084050]
  3. NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship [1138466]
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1084050] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc)-containing glycans are a prominent form of aberrant glycosylation found in human tumor cells and have been proposed as cancer biomarkers. The B subunit of the subtilase cytotoxin (SubB) produced by Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli recognises Neu5Gc containing glycans. We have previously engineered this lectin, SubB2M, for greater specificity and enhanced recognition of Neu5Gc-containing glycans. Here we further explore the utility of SubB2M to detect Neu5Gc tumor biomarkers in sera from patients with ovarian cancer. Using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) we show that SubB2M can detect the established ovarian cancer biomarker, CA125, in a highly sensitive and specific fashion in the context of human serum. These studies established conditions for screening serum samples from patients with ovarian cancer for Neu5Gc glycans. We found that serum from patients with all stages of ovarian cancer had significantly elevated mean levels of Neu5Gc glycans compared to normal controls. Serum from patients with late stage disease (stages IIIC, IV) had uniformly elevated levels of Neu5Gc glycans. Detection of Neu5Gc-glycans using SubB2M has the potential to be used as a diagnostic ovarian cancer biomarker, as well as a tool for monitoring treatment and disease progression in late stage disease. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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