4.6 Article

Frequent occurrence of uniparental disomy in colorectal cancer

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 38-48

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgl086

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used SNP arrays to identify and characterize genomic alterations associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). Laser microdissected cancer cells from 15 adenocarinomas were investigated by Affymetrix Mapping 10K SNP arrays. Analysis of the data extracted from the SNP arrays revealed multiple regions with copy number alterations and loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Novel LOH areas were identified at chromosomes 13, 14 and 15. Combined analysis of the LOH and copy number data revealed genomic structures that could not have been identified analyzing either data type alone. Half of the identified LOH regions showed no evidence of a reduced copy number, indicating the presence of uniparental structures. The distribution of these structures was non-random, primarily involving 8q, 13q and 20q. This finding was supported by analysis of an independent set of array-based transcriptional profiles, consisting of 17 normal mucosa and 66 adenocarcinoma samples. The transcriptional analysis revealed an unchanged expression level in areas with intact copy number, including regions with uniparental disomy, and a reduced expression level in the LOH regions representing factual losses (including 5q, 8p and 17p). The analysis also showed that genes in regions with increased copy number (including 7p and 20q) were predominantly upregulated. Further analyses of the SNP data revealed a subset of the identified alterations to be specifically associated with TP53 inactivation (including 8q gain and 17p loss) and lymph node metastasis status (gain of 7q and 13q). Another subset of the identified alterations was shown to represent intratumor heterogeneity. In conclusion, we demonstrate that uniparental disomy is frequent in CRC, and identify genomic alterations associated with TP53 inactivation and lymph node status.

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