Cargando…
A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer
The tumor suppressor protein p53 is mutated in half of all cancers and has been described to form amyloid-like structures, commonly known from key proteins in neurodegenerative diseases. Still, the clinical relevance of p53 aggregates remains largely unknown, which may be due to the lack of sensitiv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9493009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36158680 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.976725 |
_version_ | 1784793602408316928 |
---|---|
author | Heinzl, Nicole Koziel, Katarzyna Maritschnegg, Elisabeth Berger, Astrid Pechriggl, Elisabeth Fiegl, Heidi Zeimet, Alain G. Marth, Christian Zeillinger, Robert Concin, Nicole |
author_facet | Heinzl, Nicole Koziel, Katarzyna Maritschnegg, Elisabeth Berger, Astrid Pechriggl, Elisabeth Fiegl, Heidi Zeimet, Alain G. Marth, Christian Zeillinger, Robert Concin, Nicole |
author_sort | Heinzl, Nicole |
collection | PubMed |
description | The tumor suppressor protein p53 is mutated in half of all cancers and has been described to form amyloid-like structures, commonly known from key proteins in neurodegenerative diseases. Still, the clinical relevance of p53 aggregates remains largely unknown, which may be due to the lack of sensitive and specific detection methods. The aim of the present study was to compare the suitability of four different methodologies to specifically detect p53 aggregates: co-immunofluorescence (co-IF), proximity ligation assay (PLA), co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP), and the p53-Seprion-ELISA in cancer cell lines and epithelial ovarian cancer tissue samples. In 7 out of 10 (70%) cell lines, all applied techniques showed concordance. For the analysis of the tissue samples co-IF, co-IP, and p53-Seprion-ELISA were compared, resulting in 100% concordance in 23 out of 30 (76.7%) tissue samples. However, Co-IF lacked specificity as there were samples, which did not show p53 staining but abundant staining of amyloid proteins, highlighting that this method demonstrates that proteins share the same subcellular space, but does not specifically detect p53 aggregates. Overall, the PLA and the p53-Seprion-ELISA are the only two methods that allow the quantitative measurement of p53 aggregates. On the one hand, the PLA represents the ideal method for p53 aggregate detection in FFPE tissue, which is the gold-standard preservation method of clinical samples. On the other hand, when fresh-frozen tissue is available the p53-Seprion-ELISA should be preferred because of the shorter turnaround time and the possibility for high-throughput analysis. These methods may add to the understanding of amyloid-like p53 in cancer and could help stratify patients in future clinical trials targeting p53 aggregation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9493009 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94930092022-09-23 A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer Heinzl, Nicole Koziel, Katarzyna Maritschnegg, Elisabeth Berger, Astrid Pechriggl, Elisabeth Fiegl, Heidi Zeimet, Alain G. Marth, Christian Zeillinger, Robert Concin, Nicole Front Oncol Oncology The tumor suppressor protein p53 is mutated in half of all cancers and has been described to form amyloid-like structures, commonly known from key proteins in neurodegenerative diseases. Still, the clinical relevance of p53 aggregates remains largely unknown, which may be due to the lack of sensitive and specific detection methods. The aim of the present study was to compare the suitability of four different methodologies to specifically detect p53 aggregates: co-immunofluorescence (co-IF), proximity ligation assay (PLA), co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP), and the p53-Seprion-ELISA in cancer cell lines and epithelial ovarian cancer tissue samples. In 7 out of 10 (70%) cell lines, all applied techniques showed concordance. For the analysis of the tissue samples co-IF, co-IP, and p53-Seprion-ELISA were compared, resulting in 100% concordance in 23 out of 30 (76.7%) tissue samples. However, Co-IF lacked specificity as there were samples, which did not show p53 staining but abundant staining of amyloid proteins, highlighting that this method demonstrates that proteins share the same subcellular space, but does not specifically detect p53 aggregates. Overall, the PLA and the p53-Seprion-ELISA are the only two methods that allow the quantitative measurement of p53 aggregates. On the one hand, the PLA represents the ideal method for p53 aggregate detection in FFPE tissue, which is the gold-standard preservation method of clinical samples. On the other hand, when fresh-frozen tissue is available the p53-Seprion-ELISA should be preferred because of the shorter turnaround time and the possibility for high-throughput analysis. These methods may add to the understanding of amyloid-like p53 in cancer and could help stratify patients in future clinical trials targeting p53 aggregation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9493009/ /pubmed/36158680 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.976725 Text en Copyright © 2022 Heinzl, Koziel, Maritschnegg, Berger, Pechriggl, Fiegl, Zeimet, Marth, Zeillinger and Concin https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Heinzl, Nicole Koziel, Katarzyna Maritschnegg, Elisabeth Berger, Astrid Pechriggl, Elisabeth Fiegl, Heidi Zeimet, Alain G. Marth, Christian Zeillinger, Robert Concin, Nicole A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title | A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title_full | A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title_fullStr | A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title_short | A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
title_sort | comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9493009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36158680 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.976725 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heinzlnicole acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT kozielkatarzyna acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT maritschneggelisabeth acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT bergerastrid acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT pechrigglelisabeth acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT fieglheidi acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT zeimetalaing acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT marthchristian acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT zeillingerrobert acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT concinnicole acomparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT heinzlnicole comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT kozielkatarzyna comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT maritschneggelisabeth comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT bergerastrid comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT pechrigglelisabeth comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT fieglheidi comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT zeimetalaing comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT marthchristian comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT zeillingerrobert comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer AT concinnicole comparisonoffourtechnologiesfordetectingp53aggregatesinovariancancer |