4.6 Article

Poly (A)+ Transcriptome Assessment of ERBB2-Induced Alterations in Breast Cell Lines

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021022

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [98/14335-2]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [484807/2007-2]
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  4. Department of Defense (DOD)
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [98/14335-2] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the first quantitative and qualitative analysis of the poly (A)(+) transcriptome of two human mammary cell lines, differentially expressing (human epidermal growth factor receptor) an oncogene over-expressed in approximately 25% of human breast tumors. Full-length cDNA populations from the two cell lines were digested enzymatically, individually tagged according to a customized method for library construction, and simultaneously sequenced by the use of the Titanium 454-Roche-platform. Comprehensive bioinformatics analysis followed by experimental validation confirmed novel genes, splicing variants, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and gene fusions indicated by RNA-seq data from both samples. Moreover, comparative analysis showed enrichment in alternative events, especially in the exon usage category, in ERBB2 over-expressing cells, data indicating regulation of alternative splicing mediated by the oncogene. Alterations in expression levels of genes, such as LOX, ATP5L, GALNT3, and MME revealed by large-scale sequencing were confirmed between cell lines as well as in tumor specimens with different ERBB2 backgrounds. This approach was shown to be suitable for structural, quantitative, and qualitative assessment of complex transcriptomes and revealed new events mediated by ERBB2 overexpression, in addition to potential molecular targets for breast cancer that are driven by this oncogene.

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