4.6 Article

DNA methylation genome-wide analysis in remnant and primary gastric cancers

期刊

GASTRIC CANCER
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 1109-1120

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-019-00949-5

关键词

Remnant gastric cancer; DNA methylation; Genome-wide analysis; Tumor suppressor gene; Helicobacter pylori

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Although primary (PGC) and remnant gastric cancers (RGC) both originate from the same gastrointestinal organ, they have very distinct clinicopathological behaviors. We hypothesized that there would be distinct differences in DNA methylation patterns that would occur during carcinogenesis of RGC and PGC, and that the differences in methylation patterns may help identify the primary factor contributing to chronic inflammation in patients with RGC. Methods We investigated the genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of PGC and RGC tissues from 48 patients using the Infinium HumanMethylation450 Beadchip assay. The results were validated by quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP) in separate, independent cohorts. Results We found that in our training cohort of 48 patients, the most variable genes from the gastric cancer tissues identified by the Infinium HumanMethylation450 Beadchip clustered the resultant heatmap into high and low methylation groups. On multivariate analysis, PGCs contributed significantly to the high methylation group (p = 0.004, OR 12.33), which suggested that the promoter methylation status in PGC is higher than that in RGC. Supporting this conclusion was the finding that in a separate qMSP analysis in a test cohort, the EPB41L3 gene, chosen because of its high beta value on microarray analysis in the gastric cancer tissues, had significantly higher DNA promoter methylation in cancer tissues in the validation PGC tissues than in RGC. Conclusions This study demonstrated that promoter methylation status in PGC is higher than in RGC. This result may reflect the effects of the absence of Helicobacter pylori on the reduced DNA methylation in the remnant stomach.

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