4.7 Article

Calreticulin as a potential diagnostic biomarker for lung cancer

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 855-864

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-011-1146-8

关键词

Calreticulin; Immune escape; Chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay; Immunohistochemistry; Lung cancer

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972683, 31070794]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calreticulin (CRT) is an endoplasmic reticulum luminal Ca2+-binding chaperone protein. By immunizing mice with recombinant fragment (rCRT/39-272), six clones of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were generated and characterized. Based on these mAbs, a microplate chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) system with a measured limit of detection of 0.09 ng/ml was developed. Using this CLEIA system, it was found that soluble CRT (sCRT) level in serum samples from 58 lung cancer patients was significantly higher than that from 40 healthy individuals (only 9 were detectable, P < 0.0001). Among them, serum sCRT in the small cell lung cancer was lower than that in adenocarcinoma (P = 0.0085), while both were lower than that in the squamous cell carcinoma (P = 0.013, P = 0.0012, respectively). Moreover, it was found that sCRT in sera from the patients after chemotherapy was higher than that from the patients without chemotherapy (P = 0.042). Further study by immunohistochemistry showed that CRT was also highly expressed in the cytoplasm and on the membrane of the lung cancer cells, while there was a trace amount of CRT expression in normal lung cells. Correspondingly, the expression level of CRT on lung cancer cell membrane was associated with the tumor pathological grade. This study demonstrates that sCRT concentration in sera of lung cancer patients is higher than that in sera of healthy individuals, and CRT expression level on lung cancer cell membrane is associated with tumor pathological classification and grade. These findings suggest that CRT may be used as a biomarker in lung cancer prediction and diagnosis.

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

4.7
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