4.6 Article

Identification and verification of heat shock protein 60 as a potential serum marker for colorectal cancer

期刊

FEBS JOURNAL
卷 278, 期 24, 页码 4845-4859

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08385.x

关键词

2D-DIGE; colorectal cancer; HSP60; marker validation; serum biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health issue worldwide, and novel tumor markers may contribute to its efficient management by helping in early detection, prognosis or surveillance of disease. The aim of our study was to identify new serum biomarkers for CRC, and we followed a phased biomarker discovery and validation process to obtain an accurate preliminary assessment of potential clinical utility. We compared colonic tumors and matched normal tissue from 15 CRC patients, using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE), and identified 17 proteins that had significant differential expression. These results were further confirmed by western blotting for heat shock protein (HSP) 60, glutathione-S-transferase Pi, a-enolase, T-complex protein 1 subunit beta, and leukocyte elastase inhibitor, and by immunohistochemistry for HSP60. Using mAbs raised against HSP60, we developed a reliable (precision of 515%) and sensitive (0.3 ng.L-1) immunoassay for the detection of HSP60 in serum. Elevated levels of HSP60 were found in serum from CRC patients in two independent cohorts; the receiver-operating characteristic curve obtained in 112 patients with CRC and 90 healthy controls had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, which was identical to the AUC of carcinoembryonic antigen. Combination of serum markers improved clinical performance: the AUC of a three-marker logistic regression model combining HSP60, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 reached 0.77. Serum HSP60 appeared to be more specific for late-stage CRC; therefore, future studies should evaluate its utility for determining prognosis or monitoring therapy rather than early detection.

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