4.4 Article

Discrete breakpoint mapping and shortest region of overlap of chromosome arm Iq gain and Ip loss in human hepatocellular carcinoma detected by semiquantitative microsatellite analysis

Journal

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 34-43

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.20117

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recurrent chromosomal gain at 1q is one of the most common features of human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but how the gain at 1q contributes to hepatocarcinogenesis is still unclear. To identify the target genes, precise determination of the shortest region of overlap (SRO) and of breakpoints is necessary. Similarly, the role of loss at I p, which is also a major cytogenetic aberration in HCC, needs to be determined. Fifty HCCs were examined with the aid of 59 microsatellite markers distributed throughout both arms of chromosome 1. To detect allelic gain effectively, the cutoff value of the allelic imbalance index was set at 0.70. Alleles showing imbalance were subjected to multiplex PCR, using a retained allele as an internal control, to determine whether the imbalance was the result of chromosomal gain or loss. The SRO of the gains was defined as DIS2878-DIS2619 (1q23-q25.3, 16.9 Mb), which involved 36 cases (72%). Gains in the number of copies of certain oncogenes within this region seemed to be critical for the pathogenesis of HCC. In contrast, the centromeric breakpoints of these gains varied, but they tended to occur mainly in the pericentromeric region (26 of 50 cases, 52%). Rearrangement of specific genes associated with the gains is unlikely. On the other hand, the SRO of deletion was defined as DIS2893-DIS450 (1p36.32-p36.22, 5.1 Mb). Four known putative tumor-suppressor genes (TP73, RIZI, NBLI/DAN, and CDKN2C) were outside the SRO, suggesting the presence of other candidate genes with critical roles in hepatocarcinogenesis. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available