3.9 Article

Recurrent genomic aberrations in gastric carcinomas associated with Helicobacter pylori and Epstein-Barr virus

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 127-134

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00019606-200209000-00001

Keywords

comparative genomic hybridization; Helicobacter pylori; Epstein-Barr virus; +19; 9p; +11; 15q; cyclin E

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Helicobacter pylori and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) both have been associated with gastric carcinoma. No specific genomic aberrations have been reported in association with these agents. We studied 20 cases of primary gastric carcinoma (including 11 positive for H. pylori and 6 for EBV) by comparative genomic hybridization with validation of results by fluorescence in situ hybridization, loss of heterozygosity analysis, and immunohistochemistry. The results were analyzed in respect to presence or absence of H. pylori and EBV. The tumors were also compared in terms of histologic type, tumor location, and lymph node metastases. The most frequently observed aberrations in the gastric carcinomas were gains of chromosome 19, 17, 1p, 11, 20q, and 22. The more common losses were found in 4q, 6q, 13q, and 15q. Gains in chromosome 19 and losses in 9p23-pter were found more commonly in cases with H. pylori (P < 0.05). Gains in centromeric region of chromosome 19 were more common in the EBV-negative cases (P < 0.05). Immunohistochemical expression of cyclin E and CEA correlated with gains in the regions containing these genes. Gains in chromosome 11 and losses in 15q15 were more common in cases with EBV (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no significant association between any genomic aberration and histologic type, tumor location, or nodal metastases. H. pylori and EBV are associated with different genomic imbalances, suggesting that these infectious agents exert different influences in the development of gastric carcinoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available