4.5 Article

Identification of DNA methylation in 3′ genomic regions that are associated with upregulation of gene expression in colorectal cancer

期刊

EPIGENETICS
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 161-172

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.4161/epi.2.3.4805

关键词

epigenetics; epigenomics; DNA methylation; colon cancer; CpG island; Restriction Landmark Genomic Scanning (RLGS)

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA16056, CA68612] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Restriction landmark genomic scanning (RLGS), a method for the two-dimensional display of end-labeled NA restriction fragments, was utilized to identify genomic regions of CpG island methylation associated with Human Colon Cancer. An average of 1.5% of the RLGS loci/spots are lost or significantly reduced in sporadic primary colon tumors relative to normal colon mucosa from the same patient. This may represent tumor specific methylation of about 400 CpG islands in sporadic colon cancer. A number of RLGS loci exhibiting frequent loss associated with colon cancer were cloned. DNA sequence analysis indicated that the RLGS loci identified genomic regions characteristic of CpG islands. A number of methods including bisulfite genomic sequencing as well as quantitative MassARRAY methylation analysis (www. sequenom. com) confirmed tumor specific methylation at several of these loci. DNA database searches indicated that candidate genes associated with these loci include transcription factors and genes involved in signal transduction (52%), and genes of unknown function (37%). Expression analysis using quantitative real time RT-PCR indicates that methylation of some CpG islands located in non-promoter regions were associated with upregulation of gene expression in colorectal cancer. These results indicate that alterations in methylation status within CpG islands in colon tumors may have complex consequences on gene expression and tumorigenesis, sometimes resulting in up regulation or ectopic gene expression that may involve novel regulatory mechanisms.

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

4.5
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