PURPOSE: NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 are homologous cancer-testis antigens, which are expressed in many different cancers. It is essential to type tumors accurately to assess patient suitability for clinical trials which target these. This study evaluates typing strategies used to distinguish these two homologous but distinct antigens and to characterize and quantitate expression of each in clinical samples. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We typed 120 malignant melanomas for the expression of NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 with immunohistochemistry, reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and quantitative real-time (qRT-PCR), which was also used to explore the relationship between NY-ESO-1 and LAGE expression. RESULTS: The two monoclonal antibodies ES121 and E978 had very similar immunohistochemistry reactivities. Both were specific for NY-ESO-1 because neither bound to homologous LAGE-1 peptides despite 84% overall amino acid homology. Of 120 melanomas tested by immunohistochemistry, NY-ESO-1 was expressed in >50% of cells in 23 melanomas (19%), between 11 and 50% cells in 15 (12.5%), <11% cells in 16 (13.5%), and negative in 66 (55%). Although specific for both antigens, the PCR methods did not provide this information about microheterogeneity. Polymorphisms in the LAGE-1 gene resulted in false negative LAGE-1 typing by qRT-PCR by inhibiting binding of oligonucleotide primers, thereby showing the exquisite specificity of qRT-PCR as a typing method. CONCLUSIONS: For NY-ESO-1 typing, immunohistochemistry compared favorably with the RT-PCR, with the added advantage of being able to characterize heterogeneity of antigen expression. Because neither mAb bound LAGE and because there was no coordinate expression LAGE and NY-ESO-1, separate typing for each is required.
PURPOSE:NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 are homologous cancer-testis antigens, which are expressed in many different cancers. It is essential to type tumors accurately to assess patient suitability for clinical trials which target these. This study evaluates typing strategies used to distinguish these two homologous but distinct antigens and to characterize and quantitate expression of each in clinical samples. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We typed 120 malignant melanomas for the expression of NY-ESO-1 and LAGE-1 with immunohistochemistry, reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and quantitative real-time (qRT-PCR), which was also used to explore the relationship between NY-ESO-1 and LAGE expression. RESULTS: The two monoclonal antibodies ES121 and E978 had very similar immunohistochemistry reactivities. Both were specific for NY-ESO-1 because neither bound to homologous LAGE-1 peptides despite 84% overall amino acid homology. Of 120 melanomas tested by immunohistochemistry, NY-ESO-1 was expressed in >50% of cells in 23 melanomas (19%), between 11 and 50% cells in 15 (12.5%), <11% cells in 16 (13.5%), and negative in 66 (55%). Although specific for both antigens, the PCR methods did not provide this information about microheterogeneity. Polymorphisms in the LAGE-1 gene resulted in false negative LAGE-1 typing by qRT-PCR by inhibiting binding of oligonucleotide primers, thereby showing the exquisite specificity of qRT-PCR as a typing method. CONCLUSIONS: For NY-ESO-1 typing, immunohistochemistry compared favorably with the RT-PCR, with the added advantage of being able to characterize heterogeneity of antigen expression. Because neither mAb bound LAGE and because there was no coordinate expression LAGE and NY-ESO-1, separate typing for each is required.
Authors: Jeffrey Chou; Lilien N Voong; Christie L Mortales; Andrea M H Towlerton; Seth M Pollack; Xiaoji Chen; Cassian Yee; Paul F Robbins; Edus H Warren Journal: J Immunother Date: 2012 Feb-Mar Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Johannes A Veit; Daniela Heine; Julia Thierauf; Jochen Lennerz; Subasch Shetty; Patrick J Schuler; Theresa Whiteside; Dirk Beutner; Moritz Meyer; Inga Grünewald; Gerd Ritter; Sacha Gnjatic; Andrew G Sikora; Thomas K Hoffmann; Simon Laban Journal: Head Neck Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Paul F Robbins; Richard A Morgan; Steven A Feldman; James C Yang; Richard M Sherry; Mark E Dudley; John R Wunderlich; Azam V Nahvi; Lee J Helman; Crystal L Mackall; Udai S Kammula; Marybeth S Hughes; Nicholas P Restifo; Mark Raffeld; Chyi-Chia Richard Lee; Catherine L Levy; Yong F Li; Mona El-Gamil; Susan L Schwarz; Carolyn Laurencot; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rachel Lubong Sabado; Anna Pavlick; Sacha Gnjatic; Crystal M Cruz; Isabelita Vengco; Farah Hasan; Meredith Spadaccia; Farbod Darvishian; Luis Chiriboga; Rose Marie Holman; Juliet Escalon; Caroline Muren; Crystal Escano; Ethel Yepes; Dunbar Sharpe; John P Vasilakos; Linda Rolnitzsky; Judith Goldberg; John Mandeli; Sylvia Adams; Achim Jungbluth; Linda Pan; Ralph Venhaus; Patrick A Ott; Nina Bhardwaj Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Anna Pavlick; Ana B Blazquez; Marcia Meseck; Michael Lattanzi; Patrick A Ott; Thomas U Marron; Rose Marie Holman; John Mandeli; Andres M Salazar; Christopher B McClain; Gustavo Gimenez; Sreekumar Balan; Sacha Gnjatic; Rachel Lubong Sabado; Nina Bhardwaj Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 11.151
Authors: Evelyne Lerut; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Olivier Gruselle; Thierry Coche; Patrick Therasse Journal: Int J Clin Exp Pathol Date: 2015-08-01
Authors: Chunbo Shao; Wenyue Sun; Marietta Tan; Chad A Glazer; Sheetal Bhan; Xiaoli Zhong; Carole Fakhry; Rajni Sharma; William H Westra; Mohammad O Hoque; Christopher A Moskaluk; David Sidransky; Joseph A Califano; Patrick K Ha Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Paul F Robbins; Sadik H Kassim; Thai L N Tran; Jessica S Crystal; Richard A Morgan; Steven A Feldman; James C Yang; Mark E Dudley; John R Wunderlich; Richard M Sherry; Udai S Kammula; Marybeth S Hughes; Nicholas P Restifo; Mark Raffeld; Chyi-Chia R Lee; Yong F Li; Mona El-Gamil; Steven A Rosenberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 12.531