4.5 Article

Proteomic analysis of autoantibodies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

PROTEOMICS
卷 6, 期 13, 页码 3894-3900

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200500346

关键词

autoantibody; heat shock 70 kDa protein 1; hepatocellular carcinoma; manganese superoxide dismutase; peroxiredoxin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To detect autoantibodies that could be diagnostic markers for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we analyzed serum autoantibodies comprehensively that showed immunoreactivity to proteins in tumor tissue obtained from patients with HCC. Fifteen paired samples of HCC tissue and corresponding nontumorous liver tissue as well as five normal liver tissue samples were used in the study. A combination of proteomics and SEREX (serologic analysis of recombinant cDNA expression libraries) technique was used. Tissue proteins were separated by 2-DE, transferred onto PVDF membranes, and immunoblotted with autologous sera. By comparing each immunoblot pattern, we identified four immunoreactive spots with stronger staining intensity in tumorous tissues than in corresponding nontumorous tissues and in normal liver tissues. Matched proteins on 2-DE gels were identified by LC-MS/MS. These immunoreactive proteins were heat shock 70 kDa protein 1 (HSP70), glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase, peroxiredoxin, and manganese superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD). In HCC sera, occurrences of autoantibodies against these proteins were 7/15 (46.7%), 5/15 (33.3%), 5/15 (33.3%), and 6/15 (40.0%), respectively, whereas 2/20 (10.0%), 7/20 (35.0%), 0/20 (0.0%), and 2/20 (10.0%) were in control sera. Immunoblot analysis using commercially available purified proteins was performed to confirm the specificity of autoantibodies. By statistical analysis, autoantibodies against FISP70, peroxiredoxin, and Mn-SOD showed significantly high-frequency immunoreaction in HCC sera. The three antibodies were considered patient-specific antibodies in HCC and may be candidate diagnostic biomarkers for HCC.

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

4.5
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