Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Chemistry
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Clinical Chemistry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
OtherLetters to the Editor

Unambiguous Identification of the Expressed MAGE-A Genes on a DNA Microarray

Nathalie Zammatteo, Caroline Davril, Francis Brasseur, Sandrine Hamels, Etienne De Plaen, Thierry Boon, José Remacle
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.057372 Published November 2005
Nathalie Zammatteo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline Davril
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francis Brasseur
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandrine Hamels
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Etienne De Plaen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thierry Boon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José Remacle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

We have described a post-PCR detection method for the 12 MAGE-A sequences on a DNA microarray (1) and compared the results with a method using pairs of primers unique for each sequence (2). The microarray assay did not differentiate between MAGE-A3 and MAGE-A6 amplicons, which differed by only 1 nucleotide, and could not distinguish between PCR products amplified from mRNA and those amplified from genomic DNA. In addition, the assay could not identify false-negative results related to RNA degradation or to enzyme inhibition during reverse transcription-PCR.

Here we describe an assay that is designed to overcome these drawbacks and appears to be more sensitive. We used 3 primer pairs: 1 for amplification of the 12 MAGE-A sequences (1); 1 for specific amplification of MAGE-A3; and 1 for amplification of an endogenous, ubiquitously expressed control gene (MAGE-D2) (3). The low-density microarray includes new capture probes for MAGE-A3 and -D2. The assay involved DNase treatment of total RNA, reverse transcription of mRNA with oligo(dT) primer, triplex PCR amplification in the presence of biotin-dATP/biotin-dCTP, and hybridization of the resulting amplicons on a DNA microarray (see the Experimental Protocol in the Data Supplement that accompanies the online version of this Letter at http://www.clinchem.org/content/vol51/issue12).

The new capture probe for MAGE-A3 corresponded to a sequence downstream from the location of the reverse primer DPASCONB4, and a primer pair (DPSA3 and DPASA3) defining a MAGE-A3 amplicon encompassing the new probe sequence was added to the PCR mixture. With a sample expressing MAGE-A3, this method generated 2 MAGE-A3 amplicons: one by extension of the consensus MAGE-A primers and the other by extension of the MAGE-A3 primers; only the latter, however, was detected on the microarray carrying the new MAGE-A3 probe. We verified the absence of cross-hybridization of MAGE-A6 sequences with the new MAGE-A3 probe by analyzing 8 tumor samples known to express MAGE-A6 but not MAGE-A3 (as determined by the comparison method). MAGE-A6 was detected in all samples, whereas no signal was detected with the MAGE-A3 probe in any sample.

To determine the detection limit of the assay, we tested various amounts (1.0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.01 μg) of DNase-treated total RNA from MZ2-MEL.3.0 cells. This melanoma cell line expresses MAGE-A1, -A2, -A3, -A6, and -A10 and weakly expresses MAGE-A5 and -A12 (2)(4). With 1 μg of RNA, all of the expected MAGE-A genes were detected (see Table 1 in the online Data Supplement). With <1 μg RNA, only MAGE-A5 and -A12 were not detected. With 0.01 μg of RNA, MAGE-A1, -A2, -A3, -A6, and -A10 were still detected. Compared with the previous microarray assay (1), the present results indicate an improvement in sensitivity by a factor of 10 for the detection of MAGE-A2, -A3, and -A10; by a factor of 33 for MAGE-A12; and by a factor of 100 for MAGE-A1 and -A6. This improvement probably results from the labeling of the amplicons with 2 nucleotides (biotin-11-dATP and biotin-11-dCTP) rather than biotin-16-dUTP alone (1).

We analyzed 52 cDNA samples from tumor tissues and cell lines. Two independent PCR amplifications were performed on each cDNA sample, and the resulting products were hybridized on separate microarrays. For genes MAGE-A1, -A2, -A3, -A4, -A6, -A10, or -A12, we observed a 100% correlation between the results of the 2 methods when the gene expression determined with the comparison method was >10% of that found in the reference cell line and a 98.3% correlation when no expression was detected with the comparison method (Table 1⇓ ). Discrepancies were observed only for MAGE-A12 in 3 samples. A possible explanation for the negative results by the comparison PCR assay is that MAGE-A12 is not detected optimally because the sequence of the sense primer is located close to the 5′ end of the first exon of MAGEA12. The sensitivity of this assay could be improved by selecting sense and antisense primers in the last exon of MAGE-A12 (F. Brasseur, personal communication). In the MAGECHIP® assay, the MAGE-A12 amplicon derives from a sequence located entirely in the last exon.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Comparison between the MAGECHIP and the comparison method for determining the expression of MAGE-A genes.1

Tumor samples with MAGE-A expression ≥3% may express enough MAGE antigen to be recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes (5). When the expression of MAGE-A1, -A2, -A3, -A4, -A6, -A10, or -A12 determined by the comparison method was ≥3%, we observed a correlation of 98.8% with the MAGECHIP results (Table 1⇑ ).

The inclusion of a capture probe for MAGE-A7 (pseudogene) allows detection of false positives resulting from the presence of contaminating genomic DNA in the RNA. Because the PCR primers are from a single exon (for MAGE-A) or from exons flanking a 190-bp intron (for MAGE-D2), PCR products can be generated from DNA and can contribute to the signal. After DNase treatment, we found no signal for the MAGE-A7 probe in any sample. The MAGE-D2 control was clearly positive in all samples.

In conclusion, the assay described here should facilitate tumor diagnosis related to therapeutic vaccinations involving MAGE-A gene products.

Footnotes

  • 1 Expression of MAGE-A genes in 52 samples of tumor tissues and cell lines of various histologic origins was determined by semiquantitative reverse transcription-PCR with primers specific for each gene (comparison method) and by reverse transcription-PCR with consensus and specific primers and hybridization on DNA microarrays (MAGECHIP). For each gene, the numbers of samples displaying the relative expression shown in the left-hand columns are reported. Only 48 samples were analyzed with the comparison method for expression of MAGE-A5, -A9, and -A11.

  • 2 Gene expression was scored according to band intensity of PCR products fractionated in agarose gel and expressed as a percentage of the intensity in the reference cell line RNA, which was tested undiluted and diluted 10-, 33-, and 100-fold. Reference cell lines were MZ2-MEL0.3.0 for MAGE-A1, -A2, -A3, -A5, -A6, and -A10; LB373-MEL for MAGE-A4, -A9, -A11, and -A12; and TT for MAGE-A8. −, no gene expression detected.

  • 3 The products of 2 independent PCR amplifications were hybridized on separate microarrays. An array was considered positive for a MAGE-A gene if at least 2 spots out of 3 were detected and negative if fewer than 2 spots were detected. Gene expression was scored according to the number of positive arrays: +, strong or moderate (2 positive arrays); (+), weak (1 positive array); −, no expression detected (no positive array).

  • Thierry Boon, Francis Brasseur, and Etienne De Plaen are employees of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, a not-for-profit corporation that owns several patents relative to tumor antigens. These authors are entitled to a share of the royalties received by the Ludwig Institute for the licensing of those patents.

  • © 2005 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry

References

  1. ↵
    Zammatteo N, Lockman L, Brasseur F, De Plaen E, Lurquin C, Lobert PE, et al. DNA microarray to monitor the expression of MAGE-A genes. Clin Chem 2002;48:25-34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    De Plaen E, Arden K, Traversari C, Gaforio JJ, Szikora J-P, De Smet C, et al. Structure, chromosomal localization and expression of twelve genes of the MAGE family. Immunogenetics 1994;40:360-369.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  3. ↵
    Lucas S, Brasseur F, Boon T. A new MAGE gene with ubiquitous expression does not code for known MAGE antigens recognized by T cells. Cancer Res 1999;59:4100-4103.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Serrano A, Lethé B, Delroisse J-M, Lurquin C, De Plaen E, Brasseur F, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the expression of MAGE genes in tumors by limiting dilution of cDNA libraries. Int J Cancer 1999;83:664-669.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  5. ↵
    Lethé B, van der Bruggen P, Brasseur F, Boon T. MAGE-1 expression threshold for the lysis of melanoma cell lines by a specific CTL. Melanoma Res 1997;7(Suppl 2):S83-S88.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Chemistry: 51 (12)
Vol. 51, Issue 12
December 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Share
Unambiguous Identification of the Expressed MAGE-A Genes on a DNA Microarray
Nathalie Zammatteo, Caroline Davril, Francis Brasseur, Sandrine Hamels, Etienne De Plaen, Thierry Boon, José Remacle
Clinical Chemistry Dec 2005, 51 (12) 2420-2421; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.057372
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Unambiguous Identification of the Expressed MAGE-A Genes on a DNA Microarray
Nathalie Zammatteo, Caroline Davril, Francis Brasseur, Sandrine Hamels, Etienne De Plaen, Thierry Boon, José Remacle
Clinical Chemistry Dec 2005, 51 (12) 2420-2421; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.057372

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • To the Editor:
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Long Reads, Short Time: Feasibility of Prenatal Sample Karyotyping by Nanopore Genome Sequencing
  • Hide and Seek: Overcoming the Masking Effect of Opioid Antagonists in Activity-Based Screening Tests
  • Effect of Storage Temperature for B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations for Primary Healthcare Populations
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • SUBJECT AREAS
    • Molecular Diagnostics and Genetics

Options

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • RSS

Other Publications

  • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Footer logo

© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Powered by HighWire