Effect of lymphocyte supernatants on the electrophoretic mobility of erythrocytes: significance in cancer diagnosis

Abstract

Summary.-We have determined that when an extract of human brain is preincubated with lymphocytes its subsequent capacity to inhibit the electrophoretic mobility of tanned and stabilized erythrocytes is much reduced. There is a differential effect, however, as the observed reduction is from 73% inhibition to 35% when the pre-incubation is with lymphocytes from patients with malignant disease, but from 73% to 10% when it is with lymphocytes from normal controls. These values were obtained at a brain extract concentration of 333 I&g/ml, with 5 x 106 lymphocytes, a pre-incubation time of 18-24 h, and a temperature of 27°C, which are the optimum conditions determined for differentiation between cancer patients and normal subjects. In a series of 73 subjects tested by this method 43/51 cancer patients gave an unequivocal "positive" value, 22/22 normal controls gave a "negative" value, with no false positives.

Cell electrophoresis for diagnostic purposes. I. Diagnostic value of the electrophoretic mobility test (EMT) for the detection of gynaecological malignancies

“…Several centres (using EF, CaBP or the KCI extracts as "antigens") confirmed the results of MEM (Pritchard et al, 1972(Pritchard et al, , 1973Preece & Light, 1974;Field, 1976;Irmscher et al, 1975;Klausch et al, 1975;Meyer-Rienecker et al, 1975;Jenssen et al, 1976a,b;Nowak et al, 1976;Klausch et al, 1977;Light & Preece, 1977;Muller et al, 1977;Gunther et al, 1978), MOD-MEM (Pritchard et al, 1976) and EMT (Jenssen & Shenton, 1975;Lampert et al, 1977;Shenton et al, 1977;Douwes et al, 1978;Dyson & Corbett, 1978;Tautz et al, 1978;Ritter & Oehme, 1978;Kreienberg et al, 1979;B6gelspacher et al, 1980), though the procedures have not gained universal recognition (see also Bagshawe, 1973;leading article in Nature, 1973;editorial in Lancet, 1976;Bagshawe, 1977;Moore & Lajtha, 1977;Moore, 1978).…”

Lymphocyte supernatants and the electrophoretic mobility of erythrocytes: further experience of cancer diagnosis

“…The collection of blood samples and isolation of lymphocytes (Dyson & Corbett, 1978) was unchanged, with the exception that Lymphocyte Separation Medium (Flow Laboratories, Irvine, Ayrshire) replaced Ficoll-Paque for the latter part of the investigation. No difference in lymphocyte recovery, or in results, were observed when the 2 media were compared.…”

“…We were able to reproduce their results and, in an initial trial, found the test system to detect the presence of malignancy with a success rate of some 80% (Dyson & Corbett, 1978). However, we differed from Porzsolt et al (1975) who reported their test system as a modification of the MEM test, which is generally accepted as having an immunological basis (Dickinson, 1979), in considering the test using tanned erythrocytes to be nonimmunological, and depending on the alteration of a physiological factor in the presence of malignancy (Dyson & Corbett, 1978).…”

“…We were able to reproduce their results and, in an initial trial, found the test system to detect the presence of malignancy with a success rate of some 80% (Dyson & Corbett, 1978). However, we differed from Porzsolt et al (1975) who reported their test system as a modification of the MEM test, which is generally accepted as having an immunological basis (Dickinson, 1979), in considering the test using tanned erythrocytes to be nonimmunological, and depending on the alteration of a physiological factor in the presence of malignancy (Dyson & Corbett, 1978). Further work has supported the view that, rather than a lymphokine being involved, the inhibition of the electrophoretic mobility of the tanned erythrocytes is due to neutralization of their negative change on binding myelin basic protein (the antigen used in the test), the inhibition being further increased by histones present as an impurity (Dyson & Watkinson, submitted for publication).…”

“…Since our first report (Dyson & Corbett, 1978) a double-blind trial has been in progress to determine the ability of the method to distinguish between normal subjects, those with disease other /than cancer, and patients with malignant disease. A sufficient number of subjects have now been incorporated in the trial for preliminary conclusions to be reached regarding the discriminatory ability of the test, and for experience to be gained in the factors which influence the reliability of the test, both those inherent in the test subject and those due to the test system.…”