4.6 Article

Antibodies against tumor cell glycolipids and proteins, but not mucins, mediate complement-dependent cytotoxicity

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 174, 期 9, 页码 5706-5712

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.9.5706

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P0 1 CA52477, P0 1 CA33049] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of several effector mechanisms thought to contribute to Ab efficacy against cancer is complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC). Serological analysis of a series of clinical trials conducted over a 10-year period suggested that six vaccines containing different glycolipids induced Abs mediating CDC whereas four vaccines containing carbohydrate or peptide epitopes carried almost exclusively by mucin molecules induced Abs that did not mediate CDC. To explore this further, we have now compared cell surface reactivity using flow cytometry assays (FACS), complement-fixing ability, and CDC activity of a panel of mAbs and immune sera from these trials on the same two tumor cell lines. Abs against glycolipids GM2, globo H and Lewis Y, protein KSA (epithelial cell adhesion molecule, also known as EpCAM) and mucin Ags Tn, sialylated Tn, Thomsen Friedenreich (TF), and MUC1 all reacted comparably by FACS with tumor cells expressing these Ags. Compared with the strong complement binding and CDC with Abs against glycolipids and KSA, complement binding was diminished with Abs against mucin Ags and no CDC was detected. A major difference between these two groups of Ags is proximity to the cell membrane. Glycolipids and globular glycoproteins extend less than 100 angstrom from the cell membrane while mucins extend up to 5000 angstrom. Although complement activation at sites remote from the cell membrane has long been known as a mechanism for resistance from complement lysis in bacteria, it is identified here for the first time as a factor which may contribute to resistance from CDC against cancer cells. The Journal of Immunology, 2005.

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