396 PRESENCE OF GRP78 ON THE CELL SURFACE OF KIDNEY CANCER CELLS CORRELATES WITH INCREASED ANTI-GRP78 AUTOANTIBODY TITRES IN KIDNEY CANCER PATIENTS- A POTENTIAL NOVEL DIAGNOSTIC MARKER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Basic Research1 Apr 2011396 PRESENCE OF GRP78 ON THE CELL SURFACE OF KIDNEY CANCER CELLS CORRELATES WITH INCREASED ANTI-GRP78 AUTOANTIBODY TITRES IN KIDNEY CANCER PATIENTS- A POTENTIAL NOVEL DIAGNOSTIC MARKER Richard Austin, Mario Gonzalez-Gronow, Sarka Lhotak, Ali Al-Hashimi, Liz Crane, Anil Kapoor, and Jehonathan Pinthus Richard AustinRichard Austin Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author , Mario Gonzalez-GronowMario Gonzalez-Gronow Durham, NC More articles by this author , Sarka LhotakSarka Lhotak Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author , Ali Al-HashimiAli Al-Hashimi Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author , Liz CraneLiz Crane Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author , Anil KapoorAnil Kapoor Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author , and Jehonathan PinthusJehonathan Pinthus Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.484AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES GRP78 is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-resident molecular chaperone that functions in correct folding of newly synthesized proteins. Translocation of GRP78 to the cell surface allows it to function as a unique signaling receptor to promote cell proliferation and survival. Furthermore, exposure of GRP78 on the surface of cancer cells stimulates the production of anti-GRP78 autoantibodies which correlate with accelerated cancer progression, enhanced metastatic potential and reduced survival. The purpose of these study was to assess the expression of cell surface GRP78 in kidney cancer specimens as well as the presence of anti-GRP78 autoantibodies in the serum of patients with kidney cancer. METHODS Tumor and normal surrounding renal parenchyma as well as serum samples were obtained prospectively from 65 with kidney cancer patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy in the past year (2009) in our institution. Immunocytochemistry staining with anti-GRP78 antibodies was performed on all specimens. Anti-GRP78 autoantibody titres in the serum were determined using ELISA assay and compared to that of 14 control non-kidney cancer patients. Changes in the activity of tissue factor procoagulant following treatment of CRL-1932 human clear cell renal cancer cells with purified anti-GRP78 autoantibodies were measured. RESULTS Prominent GRP78 immunostaining was observed on the cell surface of RCC biopsies. Normal perinuclear immunostaining for GRP78 was observed in adjacent cells from normal renal tissue. Anti-GRP78 autoantibody titres were significantly elevated (p<0.01) from the blood of RCC patients, compared to age-matched controls. The addition of purified anti-GRP78 autoantibodies to cultured human RCC cells caused a significant elevation in tissue factor procoagulant activity, an established indicator of cell surface GRP78 activation. CONCLUSIONS Our findings demonstrate the presence of GRP78 on the surface of RCC cells and correlates with an increase in anti-GRP78 autoantibody titres in blood of kidney cancer patients but not in healthy controls. The diagnostic and prognostic potential of serum anti-GRP78 autoantibodies should be further explored. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185 Issue 4S April 2011 Page: e160 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Richard Austin Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Mario Gonzalez-Gronow Durham, NC More articles by this author Sarka Lhotak Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Ali Al-Hashimi Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Liz Crane Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Anil Kapoor Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Jehonathan Pinthus Hamilton, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".