4.8 Article

Identification of Potential Driver Genes in Human Liver Carcinoma by Genomewide Screening

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 69, Issue 9, Pages 4059-4066

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0164

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 CA999999] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC011173] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genomic copy number aberrations and corresponding transcriptional deregulation in the cancer genome have been suggested to have regulatory roles in cancer development and progression. However, functional evaluation of individual genes from lengthy lists of candidate genes from genomic data sets presents a significant challenge. Here, we report effective gene selection strategies to identify potential driver genes based on systematic integration of genome scale data of DNA copy numbers and gene expression profiles. Using regional pattern recognition approaches, we discovered the most probable copy number-dependent regions and 50 potential driver genes. At each step of the gene selection process, the functional relevance of the selected genes was evaluated by estimating the prognostic significance of the selected genes. Further validation using small interference RNA-mediated knockdown experiments showed proof-of-principle evidence for the potential driver roles of the genes in hepatocellular carcinoma progression (i.e., NCSTN and SCRIB). In addition, systemic prediction of drug responses implicated the association of the 50 genes with specific signaling molecules (mTOR, AMPK, and EGFR). In conclusion, the application of an unbiased and integrative analysis of multidimensional genomic data sets can effectively screen for potential driver genes and provides novel mechanistic and clinical insights into the pathobiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. [Cancer Res 2009;69(9):4059-66]

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available