Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 35: 824-828, 1989;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Molnar, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by McBlain, W. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Molnar, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by McBlain, W. A.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 35, 824-828, Copyright © 1989 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Immunoassay for estrogen receptor does not detect inactivated receptor

LA Molnar, N Dhirani, K Tran and WA McBlain
Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Accurate quantification of estrogen receptor (ER) is essential for optimal clinical characterization of individual cases of breast cancer. If breast tumors are mishandled, the relatively labile ER protein may lose its steroid-binding capacity (become inactivated) and not be measurable by the routine steroid-binding assay. We tested whether the commercial enzyme immunoassay of Abbott Laboratories could quantify inactivated ER. Samples of powdered breast tumors from humans were exposed to various temperature and homogenization conditions known to inactivate ER, and any remaining ER was quantified by both the immunoassay and the steroid-binding assay. For all inactivation conditions tested, the two assay methods detected the same proportions of remaining ER. We conclude that the inactivation reaction for ER also alters one or both of the antigenic site(s) necessary for the immunoassay. Hence, for breast tumors mishandled to the extent of inactivating ER, the immunoassay offers no advantage over the more conventional steroid-binding assay for quantifying any remaining ER.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.