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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heinzl, Nicole, Koziel, Katarzyna, Maritschnegg, Elisabeth, Berger, Astrid, Pechriggl, Elisabeth, Fiegl, Heidi, Zeimet, Alain G., Marth, Christian, Zeillinger, Robert, Concin, Nicole
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