4.6 Article

Immunogenomic Biomarkers and Validation in Lynch Syndrome

期刊

CELLS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells12030491

关键词

Lynch syndrome variant heterozygotes; colorectal and non-colorectal cancers; frameshift mutations; neoantigens; immune responses; immunogenomic biomarkers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary disorder with increased risk of colorectal and non-colorectal cancers. Mutations in DNA repair genes lead to dysfunctional post-replication repair system and production of neoantigens, triggering an immune response. Due to invasive nature of screening tests, adherence to cancer screening guidelines among Lynch variant heterozygotes is poor. The potential of immunogenomic biomarkers in Lynch syndrome and their correlation with cancer onset and stage is currently unclear.
Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited disorder in which affected individuals have a significantly higher-than-average risk of developing colorectal and non-colorectal cancers, often before the age of 50 years. In LS, mutations in DNA repair genes lead to a dysfunctional post-replication repair system. As a result, the unrepaired errors in coding regions of the genome produce novel proteins, called neoantigens. Neoantigens are recognised by the immune system as foreign and trigger an immune response. Due to the invasive nature of cancer screening tests, universal cancer screening guidelines unique for LS (primarily colonoscopy) are poorly adhered to by LS variant heterozygotes (LSVH). Currently, it is unclear whether immunogenomic components produced as a result of neoantigen formation can be used as novel biomarkers in LS. We hypothesise that: (i) LSVH produce measurable and dynamic immunogenomic components in blood, and (ii) these quantifiable immunogenomic components correlate with cancer onset and stage. Here, we discuss the feasibility to: (a) identify personalised novel immunogenomic biomarkers and (b) validate these biomarkers in various clinical scenarios in LSVH.

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