OBJECTIVES: MMP-2, MMP-9, their complexes and ADAM12 are detected in the urine of breast cancer patients and predict disease status. We assessed the use of FRET-based substrates in an assay to distinguish breast cancer patients from controls. DESIGN AND METHODS: Substrates with varying specificities for MMP-9 and MMP-2 and several ADAMs were screened. Flsub21 and Flsub13, substrates for ADAM12 and ADAM8 respectively, were studied. RESULTS: Flsub21 and Flsub13 cleavage activities were detected in the urine of patients with invasive and metastatic breast cancers at significantly higher frequencies compared to controls. Our model predicted probabilities of 90% when both Flsub21 and Flsub13 were positive, 65% when Flsub21 alone was positive, 55% when Flsub13 alone was positive and 20% when both substrates were negative. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the potential utility of FRET substrates to non-invasively identify invasive and/or metastatic breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES:MMP-2, MMP-9, their complexes and ADAM12 are detected in the urine of breast cancerpatients and predict disease status. We assessed the use of FRET-based substrates in an assay to distinguish breast cancerpatients from controls. DESIGN AND METHODS: Substrates with varying specificities for MMP-9 and MMP-2 and several ADAMs were screened. Flsub21 and Flsub13, substrates for ADAM12 and ADAM8 respectively, were studied. RESULTS: Flsub21 and Flsub13 cleavage activities were detected in the urine of patients with invasive and metastatic breast cancers at significantly higher frequencies compared to controls. Our model predicted probabilities of 90% when both Flsub21 and Flsub13 were positive, 65% when Flsub21 alone was positive, 55% when Flsub13 alone was positive and 20% when both substrates were negative. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the potential utility of FRET substrates to non-invasively identify invasive and/or metastatic breast cancer.
Authors: Thorsten Maretzky; Marc Schulte; Andreas Ludwig; Stefan Rose-John; Carl Blobel; Dieter Hartmann; Peter Altevogt; Paul Saftig; Karina Reiss Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Millard H Lambert; R Kevin Blackburn; Theresa D Seaton; Daniel B Kassel; Daniel S Kinder; M Anthony Leesnitzer; D Mark Bickett; Janet R Warner; Marc W Andersen; Jennifer G Badiang; David J Cowan; Michael D Gaul; Kimberly G Petrov; Michael H Rabinowitz; Robert W Wiethe; J David Becherer; Darryl L McDougald; David L Musso; Robert C Andrews; Marcia L Moss Journal: Comb Chem High Throughput Screen Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 1.339
Authors: Cecilia A Fernández; Li Yan; Gwendolyn Louis; Jiang Yang; Jeffery L Kutok; Marsha A Moses Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Toshie Yoneyama; Michael Gorry; Andrea Sobo-Vujanovic; Yan Lin; Lazar Vujanovic; Autumn Gaither-Davis; Marcia L Moss; Miles A Miller; Linda G Griffith; Douglas A Lauffenburger; Laura P Stabile; James Herman; Nikola L Vujanovic Journal: J Cancer Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Mathilde Romagnoli; Nora D Mineva; Michael Polmear; Catharina Conrad; Srimathi Srinivasan; Delphine Loussouarn; Sophie Barillé-Nion; Irene Georgakoudi; Áine Dagg; Enda W McDermott; Michael J Duffy; Patricia M McGowan; Uwe Schlomann; Maddy Parsons; Jörg W Bartsch; Gail E Sonenshein Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2013-12-27 Impact factor: 12.137