Mesothelin: An early detection biomarker for cancer (By Jack Andraka)
Author/ Curator: Tilda Barliya PhD
I was recently amazed to read about a young teen who scooped the headlines with his story: Jack Andraka created an early detection test for pancreatic cancer (PC) (1). While we extensively discussed pancreatic cancer in previous posts (1b), this one deserve it’s on attention.
Andraka tells the audience about his journey from learning about a the family member diagnosed with PC, to a flash insight while learning about carbon nanotubes during a biology class, through the screening and finding one protein out of thousands and all the way up his final discovery. His journey wasn’t easy to say the least, he story though deserve all the applause.
Starting with his journey, Andraka began by “looking for a protein in the bloodstream that would be a biomarker for pancreatic cancer, one that would be found in all cases, even in the earliest stages”. He finally narrowed it down to the one that could work – Mesothelin.
So what is mesothelin?
Gubbels JA, et al. Mol. Cancer (2006). Model for peritoneal metastasis of ovarian tumors.
Mesothelin is a 4o kDa secreted protein expressed in normal mesothelial cells and over-expressed in several human tumors including mesothelioma, ovarian and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (2,3). Although the full mechanism by which mesothelin work is still unsolved, it is postulated thought, that mesothelin growth and apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells by a p53 -dependent and independent pathways (7).
Andraka’s method:
human mesothelin-specific antibodies were mixed with single walled carbon nanotubes and used to coat strips of ordinary filter paper. This made the paper conductive. The optimal layering was determined using a scanning electron microscope. Cell media spiked with varying amounts of mesothelin was then tested against the paper biosensor and any change in the electrical potential of the sensor strip (due to the changing conductivity of the nanotubes) was measured, before and after each application.
The antibodies would bind to the mesothelin and enlarge. These beefed-up molecules would spread the nanotubes farther apart, changing the electrical properties of the network: The more mesothelin present, the more antibodies would bind and grow big, and the weaker the electrical signal would become.
A dose-response curve was constructed with an R2 value of .9992. Tests on human blood serum obtained from both healthy people and patients with chronic pancreatities, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (a precursor to pancreatic carcinoma), or pancreatic cancer showed a similar response. The sensor’s limit of detection sensitivity was found to be 0.156 ng/mL; 10 ng/mL is considered the level of overexpression of mesothelin consistent with pancreatic cancer. Andraka’s sensor costs $0.03 (to compare to a $800 cost of a standard test) and 10 tests can be performed per strip, taking 5 minutes each. The method is 168 times faster, 26,667 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive than ELISA, and 25% to 50% more accurate than the CA19-9 test (5).
More so, Wang K and colleagues showed that inhibition of mesothelin may be used as novel strategy for targeting cancer cells (6). The authors showed that silencing the MSLN gene, encoding for mesothelin, inhibits cell proliferation and invasion. While this work is very impressive, the authors haven’t evaluated the potential use these siRNA in animal studies.
In summary:
It is very exiting to know that we may now have a simple and cheap blood test that has the huge potential to save many lives. All we need to do now is to conduct a multinational large scale screening for potential patients.
Andraka on his part is very hopeful, he believes “it could potentially be used to test for ovarian and lung cancer too. And by switching out the protein the test reacts to, it could — down the road — be used for diseases as varied as heart disease and HIV/AIDS”.
Ref:
1. By: Kate Torgovnich . An early detection test for pancreatic cancer: Jack Andraka at TED2013.http://blog.ted.com/2013/02/27/an-early-detection-test-for-pancreatic-cancer-jack-andraka-at-ted2013/
1b. By; Tilda Barliya PhD. Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy. http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/04/11/update-on-pancreatic-cancer/
2. Mesothelin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelin
3. Nathalie Scholler. Mesothelin. http://www.med.upenn.edu/schollerlab/user_documents/Scholler%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Cancer%202008.pdf
4. Argani P, Iacobuzio-Donahue C, Ryu B, Rosty C, Goggins M, Wilentz RE, Murugesan SR, Leach SD, Jaffee E, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Kern SE and Hruban RH. Mesothelin is overexpressed in the vast majority of ductal adenocarcinomas of the pancreas: identification of a new pancreatic cancer marker by serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE). Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Dec;7(12):3862-3868. http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/12/3862.long
5. Jack Andraka and Glen Burnie, MD. A Novel Paper Sensor for the Detection of Pancreatic Cancer. http://apps.societyforscience.org/intelisef2012/project.cfm?PID=ME028&CFID=28485&CFTOKEN=10931553
6. Wang K, Bodempudi V, Liu Z, Borrego-Diaz E, Yamoutpoor F, et al. (2012) Inhibition of Mesothelin as a Novel Strategy for Targeting Cancer Cells. PLoS ONE 7(4): e33214. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033214. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033214
7. Zheng C, Jia W, Tang Y, Zhao HL, Jiang Y and Sun S. Mesothelin regulates growth and apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells through p53-dependent and -independent signal pathway. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 2012, 31:84. http://www.jeccr.com/content/pdf/1756-9966-31-84.pdf
Other related articles on this open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:
I. Pancreatic cancer genomes: Axon guidance pathway genes – aberrations revealed.
Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, 10/24/2012
II. Biomarker tool development for Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Van Andel Institute and Emory University.
Aviva Lev-Ari PhD,RN, 10/24/2012
III. Personalized Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Option.
Aviva Lev-Ari PhD, RN, 10/16/2012
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/16/personalized-pancreatic-cancer-treatment-option/
IV. Battle of Steve Jobs and Ralph Steinman with Pancreatic cancer: How we lost.
Ritu Saxena PhD, 5/21/2012
V. Early Biomarker for Pancreatic Cancer Identified.
Prabodh Kandala, PhD, 5/17/2012
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/05/17/early-biomarker-for-pancreatic-cancer-identified/
VI. Usp9x: Promising therapeutic target for pancreatic cancer.
Ritu Saxen PhD, 5/14/2012
VII. Issues in Personalized Medicine in Cancer: Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing.
Stephen J. Williams, PhD, 10/4/2013
VIII. In Focus: Targeting of Cancer Stem Cells.
Ritu Saxena, PhD, 3/27/2013
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/27/in-focus-targeting-of-cancer-stem-cells/
IIX. New Ecosystem of Cancer Research: Cross Institutional Team Science.
Aviva Lev-Ari. PhD, RN, 3/24/2013
IX. In Focus: Identity of Cancer Stem Cells.
Ritu Saxena, PhD, 3/22/2013
http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/22/in-focus-identity-of-cancer-stem-cells/
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
satwik Sunnam
sjwilliamspa
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.