4.8 Article

CpG island methylation of DNA damage response genes in advanced ovarian cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 65, 期 19, 页码 8961-8967

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1187

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM63340] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [R21113491-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have determined the methylation frequencies of 24 CpG islands of genes associated with DNA damage responses or with ovarian cancer in 106 stage III/IV epithelial ovarian tumors. We have analyzed this data for whether there is evidence of a CpG island methylator phenotype or associations of CpG island methylation with response to chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. Frequent methylation was observed for OPCML, DCR1, RASSF1A, HIC1, BRCA1, and MINT25 (33.3%, 30.7%, 26.4%, 17.3%, 12.3%, and 12.0%, respectively), whereas no methylation was observed for APAF-1, DAPK, FANCF, FAS, P-14, P21, P73, SOCS-3, and SURVIVEN. The remaining genes showed only a low frequency of methylation, <10%. Unsupervised gene shaving identified a nonrandom pattern of methylation for OPCML, DCR1, RASSF1A, MEVT25, HIC1, and SFRP1, supporting the concept of concordant methylation of these genes in ovarian cancer. Methylation of at least one of the group of genes involved in DNA repair/drug detoxification (BRCA1, GSTP1, and MGMT) was associated with improved response to chemotherapy (P = 0.013). We have examined the frequency of a polymorphism in the DNA methyltransferase gene DNMT3b6, which has been previously reported to affect gene transcription and cancer risk. The genetic polymorphism in the DNMT3b6 gene promoter (at position -149) is not significantly associated with the concordant methylation observed, but is weakly associated with the overall frequency of methylation at the genes examined (P = 0.04, n = 56). This supports the hypothesis that genetic factors affecting function of DNMT genes may underlie the propensity of tumors to acquire aberrant CpG island methylation.

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