4.4 Article

Multiplexed Methylation Profiles of Tumor Suppressor Genes in Bladder Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 29-40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2010.11.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [SAF2009-13035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Changes in DNA methylation of tumor suppressors can occur early in carcinogenesis and are potentially important early indicators of cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the methylation of 25 tumor suppressor genes in bladder cancer using a methylation-specific (MS) multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay (MLPA). Initial analyses in bladder cancer cell lines (n = 14) and fresh-fro:ten primary bladder tumor specimens (n = 31) supported the panel of genes selected being altered in bladder cancer. The process of MS-MLPA was optimized for its application in body fluids using two independent training and validation sets of urinary specimens (n = 146), including patients with bladder cancer (n = 96) and controls (n = 50). BRCA1 (71.0%), WT1 (38.7%), and RARB (38.7%) were the most frequently methylated genes in bladder tumors, with WT1 methylation being significantly associated with tumor stage (P = 0.011). WT1 and PAX5A were identified as methylated tumor suppressors. In addition, BRCA1, WT1, and RARB were the most frequently methylated genes in urinary specimens. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed significant diagnostic accuracies in both urinary sets for BRCA1, RARB, and WT1. The novelty of this report relates to applying MS-MLPA, a multiplexed methylation technique., for tumor suppressors in bladder cancer and body fluids. Methylation profiles of tumor suppressor genes were clinically relevant for histopathological stratification of bladder tumors and offered a noninvasive diagnostic strategy for the clinical management of patients affected with uroepithelial neoplasias. (J Mol Diagn 2011, 13:29-40; DOI: 10.1016/j.moldx.2010.11.008)

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

4.4
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