4.1 Article

Identification of the Thioredoxin-Like 2 Autoantibody as a Specific Biomarker for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 87-90

Publisher

KOREAN BREAST CANCER SOC
DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.1.87

Keywords

Autoantibodies; Biomarkers; Breast neoplasms; Protein array analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Technology Innovation Program - Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea [R0003804]
  2. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI16C0992]
  3. Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [NRF-2015M3C7A1029038]
  4. Korea Technology & Information Promotion Agency for SMEs (TIPA) [R0003804] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has a higher risk of death within 5 years of being diagnosed than the other forms of breast cancer. It is the second leading cause of death due to cancer among women. Currently, however, no diagnostic blood-based biomarker exists to identify the early stages of TNBC. To address this point, we utilized a human protein microarray system to identify serum autoantibodies that showed different expression patterns between TNBC and normal serum samples, and identified five autoantibodies showing TNBC-specific expression. Among them, we selected the thioredoxin-like 2 (TXNL2) autoantibody and evaluated its diagnostic relevance by dot blot analysis with the recombinant TXNL2 protein. We demonstrated that the TXNL2 autoantibody showed 2- to 6-fold higher expression in TNBC samples than in normal samples suggesting that serum TXNL2 autoantibodies are potential biomarkers for TNBC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available