4.8 Article

Genomic analysis reveals few genetic alterations in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0903142106

关键词

copy number alterations; single-nucleotide-polymorphism (SNP); microarray; candidate gene resequencing; loss-of-heterozygosity (LOH)

资金

  1. Cancer Center Core [21765]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pediatric de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive malignancy with current therapy resulting in cure rates of only 60%. To better understand the cause of the marked heterogeneity in therapeutic response and to identify new prognostic markers and therapeutic targets a comprehensive list of the genetic mutations that underlie the pathogenesis of AML is needed. To approach this goal, we examined diagnostic leukemic samples from a cohort of 111 children with de novo AML using single-nucleotide-polymorphism microarrays and candidate gene resequencing. Our data demonstrate that, in contrast to pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), de novo AML is characterized by a very low burden of genomic alterations, with a mean of only 2.38 somatic copy-number alterations per leukemia, and less than 1 nonsynonymous point mutation per leukemia in the 25 genes analyzed. Even more surprising was the observation that 34% of the leukemias lacked any identifiable copy-number alterations, and 28% of the leukemias with recurrent translocations lacked any identifiable sequence or numerical abnormalities. The only exception to the presence of few mutations was acute megakaryocytic leukemias, with the majority of these leukemias being characterized by a high number of copy-number alterations but rare point mutations. Despite the low overall number of lesions across the patient cohort, novel recurring regions of genetic alteration were identified that harbor known, and potential new cancer genes. These data reflect a remarkably low burden of genomic alterations within pediatric de novo AML, which is in stark contrast to most other human malignancies.

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

4.8
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