4.7 Article

Oncogenetic tree modeling of human hepatocarcinogenesis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 130, 期 3, 页码 575-583

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.26063

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; chromosomal instability; oncomodel

类别

资金

  1. Tumorzentrum Heidelberg/Mannheim
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB/TRR77, B5, B7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classical comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has been used to identify recurrent genomic alterations in human HCC. As hepatocarcinogenesis is considered as a stepwise process, we applied oncogenetic tree modeling on all available classical CGH data to determine occurrence of genetic alterations over time. Nine losses (1p, 4q, 6q, 8p, 9p, 13q, 16p, 16q and 17p) and ten gains (1q, 5p, 6p, 7p, 7q, 8q, 17q, 20p, 20q and Xq) of genomic information were used to build the oncogenetic tree model. Whereas gains of 1q and 8q together with losses of 8p formed a cluster that represents early etiology-independent alterations, the associations of gains at 6q and 17q as well as losses of 6p and 9p were observed during tumor progression. HBV-induced HCCs had significantly more chromosomal aberrations compared to HBV-negative tumors. Losses of 1p, 4q and 13q were associated with HBV-induced HCCs, whereas virus-negative HCCs showed an association of gains at 5p, 7, 20q and Xq. Using five aberrations that were significantly associated with tumor dedifferentiation a robust progression model of stepwise human hepatocarcinogensis (gain 1q -> gain 8q -> loss 4q -> loss 16q -> loss 13q) was developed. In silico analysis revealed that protumorigenic candidate genes have been identified for each recurrently altered hotspot. Thus, oncogenic candidate genes that are coded on chromosome arms 1q and 8q are promising targets for the prevention of malignant transformation and the development of biomarkers for the early diagnosis of human HCC that may significantly improve the treatment options and thus prognosis of HCC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据