4.6 Article

Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations of the NF2 Gene in Sporadic Vestibular Schwannomas

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030418

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A100367]
  2. Korea Health Promotion Institute [A100367] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mutations in the neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) tumor-suppressor gene have been identified in not only NF2-related tumors but also sporadic vestibular schwannomas (VS). This study investigated the genetic and epigenetic alterations in tumors and blood from 30 Korean patients with sporadic VS and correlated these alterations with tumor behavior. Methodology/Principal Findings: NF2 gene mutations were detected using PCR and direct DNA sequencing and three highly polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers were used to assess the loss of heterozygosity (LOH) from chromosome 22. Aberrant hypermethylation of the CpG island of the NF2 gene was also analyzed. The tumor size, the clinical growth index, and the proliferative activity assessed using the Ki-67 labeling index were evaluated. We found 18 mutations in 16 cases of 30 schwannomas (53%). The mutations included eight frameshift mutations, seven nonsense mutations, one in-frame deletion, one splicing donor site, and one missense mutation. Nine patients (30%) showed allelic loss. No patient had aberrant hypermethylation of the NF2 gene and correlation between NF2 genetic alterations and tumor behavior was not observed in this study. Conclusions/Significance: The molecular genetic changes in sporadic VS identified here included mutations and allelic loss, but no aberrant hypermethylation of the NF2 gene was detected. In addition, no clear genotype/phenotype correlation was identified. Therefore, it is likely that other factors contribute to tumor formation and growth.

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