4.7 Article

A sensitive assay to measure biomarker glycosylation demonstrates increased fucosylation of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in patients with prostate cancer compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 411, 期 23-24, 页码 1935-1939

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.08.009

关键词

Prostate specific antigen (PSA); Glycosylation; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); Enzyme-linked lectin assay (ELLA); Lectin; Fucosylation; Biomarker

资金

  1. Against Breast Cancer [1121258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement is used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) but the test lacks specificity due to the number of false positive readings. The glycosylation of PSA is altered in PCa but studies in this area have been limited to few clinical samples and/or require advanced laboratory facilities. An assay to assess PSA glycosylation was established using equipment available in most routine biomedical testing laboratories. Methods: Serum samples from patients with PCa or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were used. PSA (range 4-10 ng/ml) was affinity purified, separated and probed with the lectin Ulex europaeus (UEA-1; specific for alpha 1,2 linked fucose). An enzyme-linked immunosorbent lectin assay (ELLA) with colorimetric detection was devised and PSA fucosylation assessed in a further independent set of 26 samples. Results: Free PSA (fPSA) from PCa patients showed a significant increase in fucosylation compared with fPSA from patients with BPH. The ELLA was 92% specific and 69% sensitive for PCa over BPH. In comparison, fPSA measurement was 70% specific and 56% sensitive (threshold set to 25% tPSA) for PCa over BPH. Conclusions: Changes in glycosylation of PSA were identified using 50 mu l of serum with PSA in the range of 410 ng/ml, this represents a more specific and sensitive test for PCa based on fucosylation changes of fPSA. (C) 2010 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

4.7
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