Human MAGEA4 ELISA Matched Antibody Pair

Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is considered as the seventh most common cancer worldwide, and the second prevalent malignancy in the north of Iran. A subfamily group of tumor-specific antigens, commonly specified as cancer/testis antigens (CTAs), are expressed restrictedly in testis, ovary, and placenta. Melanoma-associated antigen A4 (MAGEA4) as a CTA is overexpressed in a variety of cancers. Expressional analysis of MAGEA4 protein in ESCC may be useful to investigate its clinical relevance leading to effective improvements in ESCC diagnosis and treatment. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six ESCC patients with no preoperative therapeutic circumstance such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy were analyzed to explore the protein expression level of MAGEA4 using immunohistochemistry assay. Results: MAGEA4 overexpression was detected in 66% of ESCC samples showing strong nuclear and cytoplasmic staining compared to the normal epithelium. There were significant correlations between MAGEA4 protein expression and depth of tumor invasion (P = 0.019), and the number of involved lymph nodes (P = 0.045). Conclusion: Because of the significant correlation of MAGEA4 and indices of poor prognosis, the role of this CTA may be confirmed in ESCC aggressiveness and metastasis. Therefore, MAGEA4 may be a promising therapeutic candidate for suppressing ESCC aggressiveness.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the clinical usefulness of the melanoma antigen gene (MAGE) in making the differential diagnosis between pleomorphic adenoma (PA) and adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). In addition, using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), we examined which melanoma antigen gene was actually expressed in each tumour. Materials and Method: Immunohistochemical staining was performed on samples of paraffin-embedded tissue specimens. Fiftyeight patients were diagnosed as PA (n = 31), ACC (n = 17), and nontumoral salivary tissue (n = 10) using MAGEA and MAGEA4. Using primers that could express MAGEA1, -A2, -A3, -A4, -A6, -A10, and -A12 subtypes, real-time RT-PCR was performed in three cases of PA and four cases of ACC that occurred in fresh tissues. Result: We found no immunohistochemical expression of MAGEA or MAGEA4 in the nontumoral tissue. There was a mild degree of expression with no statistical significance in cases of PA. In ACC, however, in 17 cases (100%) and 16 cases (95%), there was a positive reaction to MAGEA and MAGEA4, respectively. In the RT-PCR analysis, PA showed no MAGE gene expression. However, both MAGEA3 and MAGEA4 were expressed in ACC. Conclusion: These results suggest that MAGE could be used as a biologic marker in the differential diagnosis between PA and ACC. Our results also indicate that the expression of MAGE, as confirmed in the RT-PCR analysis, could be used as an alternative method for the early diagnosis of salivary gland tumours.