4.7 Article

Gene expression profiling in cervical cancer: An exploration of intratumor heterogeneity

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 19, 页码 5632-5640

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0357

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To explore intratumor heterogeneity in gene expression profiles from patients with cervical cancer. Experimental Design: A total of 33 biopsies were obtained from 11 patients, sampling between two and five different areas for each tumor. The extracted RNA was hybridized onto the Affymetrix U133 Plus 2.0 oligonucleotide chip. The variance of expression within a patient (W), between patients (B) and the total variance (T = W + B) were calculated for each ProbeSet, and the ratio W/T was used as a measure of intratumor heterogeneity. Gene Ontology functional analysis was done to assess the function of genes that had high W/T (top 10%) and low W/T (bottom 10%) values. Results: In total, 448 ProbeSets (2.2% of the total) had W/T < 0.10, indicating low intratumor heterogeneity, and 537 ProbeSets (2.7% of the total) had W/T > 0.90, indicating high intratumor heterogeneity. In total 14,473 ProbeSets (72.4%) had higher intertumor than intratumor heterogeneity (W/T < 0.5). Genes with low intratumor heterogeneity were characterized by a statistically significant enrichment of immune-related functions (P < 0.0001). Genes with high intratumor heterogeneity were characterized by a significant tendency towards nuclear localization and nucleic acid binding (both P < 0.0001). For genes with W/T > 0.5, more than six biopsies would be required to minimize the intratumoral heterogeneity to < 0.15; if W/T is 0.3 to 0.4, four biopsies are required; and for low W/T of 0.16 to 0.3, only two to three biopsies would be needed. Conclusion: Although the intratumor heterogeneity was low for the majority of the tested ProbeSets, for many genes, multiple biopsies are required to obtain a reliable estimate of gene expression.

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

4.7
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