4.8 Article

High-resolution analysis of chromosomal breakpoints and genomic instability identifies PTPRD as a candidate tumor suppressor gene in neuroblastoma

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 66, 期 7, 页码 3673-3680

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4154

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although neuroblastoma is characterized by numerous recurrent, large-scale chromosomal imbalances' the genes targeted by such imbalances have remained elusive. We have applied whole-genome oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization (median probe spacing 6 kb) to 56 neuroblastoma tumors and cell lines to identify genes involved with disease pathogenesis. This set of tumors was selected for having either 11q loss or MYCN amplification, abnormalities that define the two most common genetic subtypes of metastatic neuroblastoma. Our analyses have permitted us to map large-scale chromosomal imbalances and high-level amplifications at exon-level resolution and to identify, novel microdeletions and duplications. Chromosomal breakpoints (n = 467) generating imbalances > 2 Mb were mapped to intervals ranging between 6 anti 50 kb in size, providing substantial information on each abnormality. For example, breakpoints leading to large-scale hemizygous loss of chromosome 11q were highly clustered and preferentially associated with segmental duplications. High-level amplifications of MYCN were extremely complex, often resulting in a series of discontinuous regions of amplification. Imbalances (n = 540) < 2 Mb long were also detected. Although the majority (78%) of these imbalances mapped to segmentally duplicated regions and primarily reflect constitutional copy number polymorphisms, many subtle imbalances were detected that are likely somatically acquired alterations and include genes involved with tumorigenesis, apoptosis, or neural cell differentiation. The most frequent. microdeletion involved the PTPRD locus, indicating a possible tumor suppressor function for this gene.

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

4.8
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