4.8 Article

Detection and Verification of Glycosylation Patterns of Glycoproteins from Clinical Specimens Using Lectin Microarrays and Lectin-Based Immunosorbent Assays

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 83, 期 22, 页码 8509-8516

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac201452f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Early Detection Research Network (NIH/NCI/EDRN) [U01CA152813, U24CA115102]
  2. United States Department of Defense [PC081386]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aberrant glycosylation is a fundamental characteristic of progression of diseases such as cancer. Therefore, characterization of glycosylation patterns of proteins from disease tissues may identify changes specific to the disease development and improve diagnostic performance. Thus, analysis strategies with sufficient sensitivity for evaluation of glycosylation patterns in clinical specimens are needed. Here, we describe an analytical strategy for detection and verification of glycosylation patterns. It is based on a two-phase platform including a pattern discovery phase to identify the glycosylation changes using high-density lectin microarrays and a verification phase by developing lectin-based immunosorbent assays using the identified lectins. We evaluated the analytical performance of the platform using the glycoprotein standard and found that the lectin microarray could detect specific bindings of glycoprotein to lectins at the nanogram level and the lectin-based immunosorbent assay could be used for verification of protein glycosylation. We then applied the approach to the analysis of glycosylation patterns of two glycoproteins, which are highly expressed in prostate cancer in our prior studies, prostate specific antigen (PSA) and membrane metallo-endopeptidase (MME), from aggressive (AC) and nonaggressive prostate cancer (NAC) tissues. The observed differences in glycosylation patterns of PSA and MME may represent a significant clinical importance and could be used to develop multiplex assays for diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer.

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

4.8
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