Benjamin A Katchman1, Rodrigo Barderas2, Rizwan Alam1, Diego Chowell1, Matthew S Field1, Laura J Esserman3, Garrick Wallstrom1, Joshua LaBaer1, Daniel W Cramer4, Michael A Hollingsworth5, Karen S Anderson1. 1. Virginia G. Piper Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. 2. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I Department, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mutations in TP53 induce autoantibody immune responses in a subset of cancer patients, which have been proposed as biomarkers for early detection. Here, we investigate the association of p53-specific autoantibodies with multiple tumor subtypes and determine the association with p53 mutation status and epitope specificity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: IgG p53 autoantibodies (p53-AAb), were quantified in 412 serum samples using a programmable ELISA assay from patients with serous ovarian, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and breast cancer. To determine if patients generated mutation-specific autoantibodies we designed a panel of the most relevant 51 p53 point mutant proteins, to be displayed on custom programmable protein microarrays. To determine the epitope specificity we displayed 12 overlapping tiling fragments and 38 N- and C-terminal deletions spanning the length of the wild-type p53 protein. RESULTS: We detected p53-AAb with sensitivities of 58.8% (ovarian), 22% (pancreatic), 32% (triple negative breast cancer), and 10.2% (HER2+ breast cancer) at 94% specificity. Sera with p53-AAb contained broadly reactive autoantibodies to 51 displayed p53 mutant proteins, demonstrating a polyclonal response to common epitopes. All p53-AAb displayed broad polyclonal immune response to both continuous and discontinuous epitopes at the N- and C-terminus as well as the DNA-binding domain. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this comprehensive analysis, mutations in tumor p53 induce strong, polyclonal autoantibodies with broadly reactive epitope specificity.
PURPOSE: Mutations in TP53 induce autoantibody immune responses in a subset of cancerpatients, which have been proposed as biomarkers for early detection. Here, we investigate the association of p53-specific autoantibodies with multiple tumor subtypes and determine the association with p53 mutation status and epitope specificity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: IgG p53 autoantibodies (p53-AAb), were quantified in 412 serum samples using a programmable ELISA assay from patients with serous ovarian, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and breast cancer. To determine if patients generated mutation-specific autoantibodies we designed a panel of the most relevant 51 p53 point mutant proteins, to be displayed on custom programmable protein microarrays. To determine the epitope specificity we displayed 12 overlapping tiling fragments and 38 N- and C-terminal deletions spanning the length of the wild-type p53 protein. RESULTS: We detected p53-AAb with sensitivities of 58.8% (ovarian), 22% (pancreatic), 32% (triple negative breast cancer), and 10.2% (HER2+ breast cancer) at 94% specificity. Sera with p53-AAb contained broadly reactive autoantibodies to 51 displayed p53 mutant proteins, demonstrating a polyclonal response to common epitopes. All p53-AAb displayed broad polyclonal immune response to both continuous and discontinuous epitopes at the N- and C-terminus as well as the DNA-binding domain. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this comprehensive analysis, mutations in tumorp53 induce strong, polyclonal autoantibodies with broadly reactive epitope specificity.
Authors: Karen S Anderson; Sahar Sibani; Garrick Wallstrom; Ji Qiu; Eliseo A Mendoza; Jacob Raphael; Eugenie Hainsworth; Wagner R Montor; Jessica Wong; Jin G Park; Naa Lokko; Tanya Logvinenko; Niroshan Ramachandran; Andrew K Godwin; Jeffrey Marks; Paul Engstrom; Joshua Labaer Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: R Lubin; B Schlichtholz; D Bengoufa; G Zalcman; J Trédaniel; A Hirsch; C Caron de Fromentel; C Preudhomme; P Fenaux; G Fournier; P Mangin; P Laurent-Puig; G Pelletier; M Schlumberger; F Desgrandchamps; A Le Duc; J P Peyrat; N Janin; B Bressac; T Soussi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1993-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Bernard Leroy; Jean Louis Fournier; Chikashi Ishioka; Paola Monti; Alberto Inga; Gilberto Fronza; Thierry Soussi Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Maggie C U Cheang; Christina Yau; Charles M Perou; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Joe W Gray; Kathleen Conway-Dorsey; Marc E Lenburg; Meredith B Buxton; Sarah E Davis; Laura J van't Veer; Clifford Hudis; Koei Chin; Denise Wolf; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debu Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Chad Livasy; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunni-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Alfred Au; Nola Hylton Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-12-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Benjamin A Katchman; Diego Chowell; Garrick Wallstrom; Allison F Vitonis; Joshua LaBaer; Daniel W Cramer; Karen S Anderson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ana Montero-Calle; Pablo San Segundo-Acosta; María Garranzo-Asensio; Guillermo Solís-Fernández; Maricruz Sanchez-Martinez; Rodrigo Barderas Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2021
Authors: Shadi Ferdosi; Douglas S Rehder; Paul Maranian; Erik P Castle; Thai H Ho; Harvey I Pass; Daniel W Cramer; Karen S Anderson; Lei Fu; David E C Cole; Tao Le; Xifeng Wu; Chad R Borges Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Rudolf Kaaks; Renée Turzanski Fortner; Anika Hüsing; Myrto Barrdahl; Marika Hopper; Theron Johnson; Anne Tjønneland; Louise Hansen; Kim Overvad; Agnès Fournier; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Marina Kvaskoff; Laure Dossus; Mattias Johansson; Heiner Boeing; Antonia Trichopoulou; Vassiliki Benetou; Carlo La Vecchia; Sabina Sieri; Amalia Mattiello; Domenico Palli; Rosario Tumino; Giuseppe Matullo; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Inger T Gram; Elisabete Weiderpass; Maria-Jose Sánchez; Carmen Navarro Sanchez; Eric J Duell; Eva Ardanaz; Nerea Larranaga; Eva Lundin; Annika Idahl; Karin Jirström; Björn Nodin; Ruth C Travis; Elio Riboli; Melissa Merritt; Dagfinn Aune; Kathryn Terry; Daniel W Cramer; Karen S Anderson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Laura C Hurley; Nancy K Levin; Madhumita Chatterjee; Jasmine Coles; Shlomo Muszkat; Zachary Howarth; Gregory Dyson; Michael A Tainsky Journal: Cancer Biomark Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.388
Authors: María González-González; José María Sayagués; Luis Muñoz-Bellvís; Carlos Eduardo Pedreira; Marcello L R de Campos; Jacinto García; José Antonio Alcázar; Patrick F Braz; Breno L Galves; Luis Miguel González; Oscar Bengoechea; María Del Mar Abad; Juan Jesús Cruz; Lorena Bellido; Emilio Fonseca; Paula Díez; Pablo Juanes-Velasco; Alicia Landeira-Viñuela; Quentin Lecrevisse; Enrique Montalvillo; Rafael Góngora; Oscar Blanco; José Manuel Sánchez-Santos; Joshua LaBaer; Alberto Orfao; Manuel Fuentes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Radwa Ewaisha; Gitika Panicker; Paul Maranian; Elizabeth R Unger; Karen S Anderson Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 11.556