4.4 Article

High Frequency of Genes' Promoter Methylation, but Lack of BRAF V600E Mutation among Iranian Colorectal Cancer Patients

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 819-825

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-011-9388-5

关键词

Colon cancer; BRAF; KRAS; Methylation

资金

  1. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene silencing due to DNA hypermethylation is a major mechanism for loss of tumor suppressor genes function in colorectal cancer. Activating V600E mutation in BRAF gene has been linked with widespread methylation of CpG islands in sporadic colorectal cancers. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the methylation status of three cancer-related genes, APC2, p14ARF, and ECAD in colorectal carcinogenesis and their association with the mutational status of BRAF and KRAS among Iranian colorectal cancer patients. DNA from 110 unselected series of sporadic colorectal cancer patients was examined for BRAF V600E mutation by PCR-RFLP. Promoter methylation of genes in tumors was determined by methylation specific PCR. The frequency of APC2, E-CAD, and p14 methylation was 92.6%, 40.4% and 16.7%, respectively. But, no V600E mutation was identified in the BRAF gene in any sample. No association was found in cases showing epigenetic APC, ECAD, and p14 abnormality with the clinicopathological parameters under study. The association between KRAS mutations and the so called methylator phenotype was previously reported. Therefore, we also analyzed the association between the hot spot KRAS gene mutations in codons of 12 and 13 with genes' promoter hypermethylation in a subset of this group of patients. Out of 86 tumors, KRAS was mutated in 24 (28%) of tumors, the majority occurring in codon 12. KRAS mutations were not associated with genes' methylation in this tumor series. These findings suggest a distinct molecular pathway for methylation of APC2, p14, and ECAD genes from those previously described for colorectal cancers with BRAF or KRAS mutations.

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