4.5 Article

Gene expression profiles in squamous cell cervical carcinoma using array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2007.00834.x

关键词

array-CGH; microdissection; squamous cell carcinoma of cervix

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our aim was to identify novel genomic regions of interest and provide highly dynamic range information on correlation between squamous cell cervical carcinoma and its related gene expression patterns by a genome-wide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH). We analyzed 15 cases of cervical cancer from KangNam St Mary's Hospital of the Catholic University of Korea. Microdissection assay was performed to obtain DNA samples from paraffin-embedded cervical tissues of cancer as well as of the adjacent normal tissues. The bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) array used in this study consisted of 1440 human BACs and the space among the clones was 2.08 Mb. All the 15 cases of cervical cancer showed the differential changes of the cervical cancer-associated genetic alterations. The analysis limit of average gains and losses was 53%. A significant positive correlation was found in 8q24.3, 1p36.32, 3q27.1, 7p21.1, 11q13.1, and 3p14.2 changes through the cervical carcinogenesis. The regions of high level of gain were 1p36.33-1p36.32, 8q24.3, 16p13.3, 1p36.33, 3q27.1, and 7p21.1. And the regions of homozygous loss were 2q12.1, 22q11.21, 3p14.2, 6q24.3, 7p15.2, and 11q25. In the high level of gain regions, GSDMDC1, RECQL4, TP73, ABCF3, ALG3, HDAC9, ESRRA, and RPS6KA4 were significantly correlated with cervical cancer. The genes encoded by frequently lost clones were PTPRG, GRM7, ZDHHC3, EXOSC7, LRP1B, and NR3C2. Therefore, array-CGH analyses showed that specific genomic alterations were maintained in cervical cancer that were critical to the malignant phenotype and may give a chance to find out possible target genes present in the gained or lost clones.

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