4.6 Article

Hypermethylation of Tumor Suppressor Genes Involved in Critical Regulatory Pathways for Developing a Blood-Based Test in Breast Cancer

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016080

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [320000-119722/1, 320030_124958/1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030_124958] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aberrant DNA methylation patterns might be used as a biomarker for diagnosis and management of cancer patients. Methods and Findings: To achieve a gene panel for developing a breast cancer blood-based test we quantitatively assessed the DNA methylation proportion of 248 CpG sites per sample (total of 31,248 sites in all analyzed samples) on 10 candidate genes (APC, BIN1, BMP6, BRCA1, CST6, ESR-b, GSTP1, P16, P21 and TIMP3). The number of 126 samples consisting of two different cohorts was used (first cohort: plasma samples from breast cancer patients and normal controls; second cohort: triple matched samples including cancerous tissue, matched normal tissue and serum samples). In the first cohort, circulating cell free methylated DNA of the 8 tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) was significantly higher in patients with breast cancer compared to normal controls (P<0.01). In the second cohort containing triple matched samples, seven genes showed concordant hypermethylated profile in tumor tissue and serum samples compared to normal tissue (P<0.05). Using eight genes as a panel to develop a blood-based test for breast cancer, a sensitivity and specificity of more than 90% could be achieved in distinguishing between tumor and normal samples. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the selected TSG panel combined with the high-throughput technology might be a useful tool to develop epigenetic based predictive and prognostic biomarker for breast cancer relying on pathologic methylation changes in tumor tissue, as well as in circulation.

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