4.7 Article

Long noncoding RNA profiles identify five distinct molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer with clinical relevance

Journal

MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages 1393-1403

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.05.010

Keywords

lncRNA; Consensus clustering; Colorectal cancer; Gene expression profiling; Somatic copy number alterations; Survival; Gene set enrichment analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Shanghai Natural Science Foundation [13ZR14244000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371273]
  3. Nataional Natural Science Foundation of Key Program [81320108024]
  4. Ministry of Public Health, China [200802094]
  5. Ministry of Education [20120073110078]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease in terms of clinical behavior and response to therapy. Increasing evidence suggests that long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are frequently aberrantly expressed in cancers, and some of them have been implicated in CRC biogenesis and prognosis. Using an IncRNA-mining approach, we constructed lncRNAs expression profiles in approximately 888 CRC samples. By applying unsupervised consensus clustering to LncRNA expression profiles, we identified five distinct molecular subtypes of CRC with different biological pathways and phenotypically distinct in their clinical outcome in both univariate and multivariate analysis. The prognostic significance of the lncRNA-based classifier was confirmed in independent patient cohorts. Further analysis revealed that most of the signature lncRNAs positively correlated with somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs). This lncRNAs-based classification schema thus provides a molecular classification applicable to individual tumors that has implications to influence treatment decisions. (C) 2014 Federation of European Biochemical Societies. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available