4.6 Article

Presence of aberrant tumor-reactive immunoglobulins in the circulation of patients with ovarian cancer

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 81, 期 1, 页码 71-76

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2000.6102

关键词

ovarian cancer; tumor-reactive antibodies; IgG glycosylation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Cancer patients generally exhibit circulating tumor-reactive immunoglobulins; however, these antibodies fail to eradicate tumors or prevent their progression, This study identifies and characterizes an aberrant tumor-reactive IgG population present in women with ovarian cancer. Methods. In this pilot study, IgG was isolated from the sera of women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer (stages III and IV, n = 62) and age-matched female volunteers (n = 50) by affinity chromatography. These IgGs were characterized on the basis on their aberrant binding to concanavalin A affinity columns. Subsequently, the concanavalin A-binding moiety was localized following IgG fragmentation, analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and characterized by oligosaccharide profiling. Results. The level of concanavalin A-binding IgG in our control population was 8.9 +/- 2.9%, whereas in ovarian cancer patients, the level of concanavalin A-binding IgG was 38.8 +/- 7.4%. In the patients with ovarian cancer, 87.5 +/- 5.7% of the tumor-reactive IgG was demonstrated to be concanavalin A-binding. Based on oligosaccharide profiling of the fragmented concanavalin A-binding IgG, the aberrant lectin binding appeared to be the consequence of altered glycosylation of one of the two Fc chains. Conclusions. While our previous studies have identified the presence of circulating Ige reactive with specific tumor-associated antigens and its association with poor prognosis, this report demonstrated the presence of an aberrantly glycosylated IgG population in cancer patients. This altered IgG appeared to be the primary class of tumor-reactive antibodies in these women. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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