Biomarkers immunohistochemistry

Melle, C., Ernst, G., Schimmel, B., Bleul, A, Koscielny, S., Wiesner, A., Bogumil, R., Moller, U., Osterloh, D., Halbhuber, K.J., and F. Von Eggling, 2003, Biomarker Discovery and Identification in Laser Microdissected Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma with ProteinChip(R) Technology, Two-dimensional Gel Electrophoresis, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, and Immunohistochemistry. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2(7) 443-52. 

Table 12.1 RCC biomarkers identified by classical proteomics. IHC Immunohistochemistry, NB northern blot, V/6 western blot.

The perceived need to identify objective markers to supplement, or conceivably supplant, the more subjective established histologic parameters has been a major driving force behind biomarker discovery efforts. It is crucial to recognize and account for the potential variability that can exist even with the new molecular parameters. Sources of variability include differences in molecular technique methodologies, tissue fixation and processing, interobserver and intraobserver variability (in immunohistochemistry-based biomarkers), and differences in cutoff points. Furthermore, illustration of statistical significance for a particular biomarker does... 

Dunstan, R. W., Wharton, K. A., Quigley, C., and Lowe, A. (2011). The use of immunohistochemistry for biomarker assessment Can it compete with other technologies Toxicol Pathol 39, 988-1002. 

A comparative study of malignant and normal endometrial tissues yielded a panel of proteins displaying differential expression in malignant tissues. A prominent putative marker was identified as chaperonin 10 by both MALDI-Qq-TOF and ESI-Qq-TOF-MS, confirmed by Western blot and immunohistochemistry [73], A comparison of sera of patients with endometrial cancer with those of healthy females using SELDI-TOF-MS (weak cation exchange chips) yielded a number of putative biomarkers upon evaluations with three data mining tools (a tree classifier, Biomarker Wizard, and Biomarker Patterns System). The diagnostic pattern combined with 13 putative markers made it possible to differentiate patients with endometrial cancer from healthy subjects with specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 92.5% [74]. 

---