| Literature DB >> 18460216 |
Li Zhong1, Kun Ge, Jin-chi Zu, Long-hua Zhao, Wei-ke Shen, Jian-fei Wang, Xiao-gang Zhang, Xu Gao, Wanping Hu, Yun Yen, Kemp H Kernstine.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Only a limited number of tumor markers for breast cancer are currently available. Antibodies to tumor-associated proteins may expand the number of available tumor markers for breast cancer and may be used together in a serum profile to enhance sensitivity and specificity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18460216 PMCID: PMC2481487 DOI: 10.1186/bcr2091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Figure 1Identification of disease-specific phage clones after the biopanning process. Two nitrocellulose membrane disks were placed on and then lifted from the same phage grown plate of biopan 4. (a) One membrane was probed with pooled normal sera and (b) the other was probed with pooled patient sera. After electrogenerated chemiluminescence detection, numerous immunoreactive clones showed more intensified spots on the membrane incubated with patient sera than on the membrane incubated with normal sera. The circle and square indicate the same area on the two membranes.
Proteins identified by biopanning from a breast cancer cDNA T7 phage library
| Protein | Full name; functions | Score (bits), Ea value (alignment) |
| KLF17 | Kruppel-like factor 17; new member of the Sp/KLF family of transcription factors in breast and prostate cancer | 553, 1 |
| COL6A1 | Collagen, type VI, alpha 1; breast cancer and prostate cancer prognosis | 626, 1 |
| GRWD1 | glutamate-rich WD repeat containing 1; overexpression in lung cancer, gastric cancer, and melanoma | 545, 1 |
| ASB-9 | Ankyrin repeat and SOCS box protein 9; overexpression in breast cancer and prostate cancer | 608, 1 |
| SERAC1 | Serine active site containing 1; unknown function | 460, 3 |
| RELT | Receptor expressed in lymphoid tissues; stimulating T-cell proliferation in the presence of CD3 signaling | 422, 1 |
aThe Expect value (E) is a parameter that describes the number of hits one can "expect" to see by chance when searching a database of a particular size.
Figure 2ELISA of phage-expressed proteins with individual serum samples. Antigen ELISAs were developed with ASB-9-expressing, SERAC1-expressing and RELT-expressing phages. The assays were performed with serially diluted (1:20 to 1:10,240) individual serum samples that were not used in the biopan, to confirm measurements were representative of an antigen-antibody affinity reaction. Representative curves from three patients are shown for each protein. Empty (no inserts) T7 phages were used to show the nonspecific reaction backgrounds.
Logistic regression analysis
| Protein | Area under the curve | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | |
| KLF17a | 0.474 | 100 | 27.3 | 0.0912 |
| COL6A1a | 0.482 | 100 | 32.7 | 0.0743 |
| GRWD1a | 0.4903 | 100 | 35.1 | 0.0656 |
| ASB-9 | 0.593 | 100 | 41.2 | 0.0112 |
| SERAC1 | 0.642 | 100 | 47.1 | 0.0009 |
| RELT | 0.727 | 100 | 52.9 | 0.0001 |
| Three combined | 0.861 | 100 | 80 | 0.0001 |
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve indicates the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers; the highest area = 1. aThese phage-expressed proteins showed no statistical significance in distinguishing patient samples from normal samples either individually or in combination.
Figure 3Comparisons of the specificity and sensitivity of logistic regression models. Data from quantitative ELISAs for three antibodies were evaluated for ability to predict disease. Lower curve: predictive accuracy using the logistic regression model with RELT data alone from 87 patients and from 87 normal persons as the explanatory variable. The area under the curve is 0.727 and the model is significant (P = 0.0001). Upper curve: predictive accuracy with the combination of ASB-9, SERAC1, and RELT as explanatory variables, where P = 0.0001 and the area under the curve is 0.861.
Leave-one-out validationa
| Protein | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Diagnostic accuracyb (%) |
| ASB-9 | 64.7 | 58.5 | 61.8 |
| SERAC1 | 70.6 | 52.9 | 61.7 |
| RELT | 76.5 | 64.7 | 70.6 |
| Three combined | 82.8 | 77.0 | 79.9 |
aOne sample was removed from the statistical model containing a total of 174 samples and a classifier was generated to predict the status (normal or patient) of the removed sample using the rest of the samples. This procedure was repeated for all samples. bDiagnostic accuracy = (number of true positive + number of true negative)/total number of samples.
Diagnostic accuracies in control and different stage disease samples
| Matched control ( | Cancer ( | |||
| Stage I | Stage II | Stage III | ||
| Number correct/total | 72/87 | 6/11 | 21/28 | 35/43 |
| Accuracy (%) | 82.8 | 54.5 | 75.0 | 83.3 |