4.6 Article

Improved approach to identify cancer-associated autoantigens

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 230-235

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2004.11.004

关键词

immunoscreening; autoantibodies; biomarkers; breast cancer; microarrays

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R21 CA087759, CA-87759] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R21 AR-99-128] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The failure to identify biomarkers of clinical significance for cancer diagnosis and prognosis generated a great deal of skepticism in regard to the usefulness of autoantibody-based methods. SEREX was a major advancement in immunoscreening that resulted in the identification of a large group of autoantigens recognized by cancer sera. However, few SEREX-defined autoantigens have proven to have definitive diagnostic value in clinical practice. Often, the identified antigens are patient-specific rather than tumor-specific and many tumor-associated antigens are rare in expression libraries made from non-autologous cells. Since autoantibodies are part of the normal immune response, it can be difficult to single out tumor-associated antibodies from the scores of irrelevant patient-specific responses. In our view, any practical approach for identifying cancer-related autoantigens must include an integral strategy for demonstrating tumor relevance early in the screening process. Care must also be taken not to exclude potentially important autoantibodies by pre-screening manipulations to patient sera. We have introduced substantial modifications in SEREX, designed to minimize confounding effects of unrelated autoantibodies and to eliminate steps that preclude the identification of cancer-related autoantigens commonly recognized by cancer sera. In addition, we incorporate methodology to identify candidate antigens that have potential diagnostic or prognostic value prior to their molecular cloning and characterization. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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