ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
A comparison of four technologies for detecting p53 aggregates in ovarian cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Amyloid State of Mutant p53 in Cancer.JMA journal · 2026Review
- Oncogenic Mutant p53 Sensitizes Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells to Proteasome Inhibition via Oxidative Stress-Dependent Induction of Mitochondrial Apoptosis.Cancer research communications · 2024Article
- Amyloid-like p53 as prognostic biomarker in serous ovarian cancer-a study of the OVCAD consortium.Oncogene · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The tumor suppressor protein p53 is mutated in half of all cancers and has been described to form amyloid-like structures, commonly known from key proteins in neurodegenerative diseases. Still, the clinical relevance of p53 aggregates remains largely unknown, which may be due to the lack of sensitive and specific detection methods. The aim of the present study was to compare the suitability of four different methodologies to specifically detect p53 aggregates: co-immunofluorescence (co-IF), proximity ligation assay (PLA), co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP), and the p53-Seprion-ELISA in cancer cell lines and epithelial ovarian cancer tissue samples. In 7 out of 10 (70%) cell lines, all applied techniques showed concordance. For the analysis of the tissue samples co-IF, co-IP, and p53-Seprion-ELISA were compared, resulting in 100% concordance in 23 out of 30 (76.7%) tissue samples. However, Co-IF lacked specificity as there were samples, which did not show p53 staining but abundant staining of amyloid proteins, highlighting that this method demonstrates that proteins share the same subcellular space, but does not specifically detect p53 aggregates. Overall, the PLA and the p53-Seprion-ELISA are the only two methods that allow the quantitative measurement of p53 aggregates. On the one hand, the PLA represents the ideal method for p53 aggregate detection in FFPE tissue, which is the gold-standard preservation method of clinical samples. On the other hand, when fresh-frozen tissue is available the p53-Seprion-ELISA should be preferred because of the shorter turnaround time and the possibility for high-throughput analysis. These methods may add to the understanding of amyloid-like p53 in cancer and could help stratify patients in future clinical trials targeting p53 aggregation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.