4.6 Article

GWAS Meets Microarray: Are the Results of Genome-Wide Association Studies and Gene-Expression Profiling Consistent? Prostate Cancer as an Example

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006511

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA121197, T32 CA096520, R01 CA121197-01A2] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR055258, R01 AR055258] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and global profiling of gene expression (microarrays) are two major technological breakthroughs that allow hypothesis-free identification of candidate genes associated with tumorigenesis. It is not obvious whether there is a consistency between the candidate genes identified by GWAS (GWAS genes) and those identified by profiling gene expression (microarray genes). Methodology/Principal Findings: We used the Cancer Genetic Markers Susceptibility database to retrieve single nucleotide polymorphisms from candidate genes for prostate cancer. In addition, we conducted a large meta-analysis of gene expression data in normal prostate and prostate tumor tissue. We identified 13,905 genes that were interrogated by both GWASs and microarrays. On the basis of P values from GWASs, we selected 1,649 most significantly associated genes for functional annotation by the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery. We also conducted functional annotation analysis using same number of the top genes identified in the meta-analysis of the gene expression data. We found that genes involved in cell adhesion were overrepresented among both the GWAS and microarray genes. Conclusions/Significance: We conclude that the results of these analyses suggest that combining GWAS and microarray data would be a more effective approach than analyzing individual datasets and can help to refine the identification of candidate genes and functions associated with tumor development.

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

4.6
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