3.8 Article

Genome-wide aberrations in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

期刊

CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS
卷 161, 期 1, 页码 36-50

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2005.01.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA 16056, CA 80270, P50 CA 62924] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chromosomal instability, manifesting as copy number alterations (CNAs), is characteristic of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We used bacteria] artificial chromosome (BAC) array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to examine the pancreatic adenocarcinoma genome for submicroscopic amplifications and deletions. Profiles of 33 samples (17 first-passage xenografts and 16 cell lines) identified numerous chromosomal regions with CNAs, including losses at 1p36.33 similar to p34.3, 1p13.3-p13.2, 3p26, 3p25.2-p22.3, 3p22.1-p14.1, 4q28.3, 4q31, 4q35.1, 5q14.3, 6p, 6q, 8p23.3 similar to p12,9p,9q22.32 similar to q31.1, 13q33.2, 15q11.2, 16p13.3, 17p, 18q11.21 similar to q23, 19p13.3 similar to p13.12, 19q13.2, 21p, 21q, and 22p, 22q and gains at 7p21.1 similar to p11.2, 7q31.32, 7q33, 8q11.1 similar to q24, 11p13, 14q22.2, 20p12.2, and 20q11.23 similar to q13.33. Novel regions containing CNAs were identified and refined by combining the increased resolution of our BAC CGH array with a statistical algorithm developed for assigning significance values to altered BACs across samples. A subset of array-based CNAs was validated using polymerase chain reaction-based techniques, immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. BAC aCGH proved to be a powerful genome-wide strategy to identify molecular alterations in pancreatic cancer and to distinguish differences between cell line and xenograft aberration profiles. These findings should greatly facilitate further research in understanding the pathogenesis of this lethal disease, and could lead to the identification of novel therapeutic targets and biomarkers for early detection. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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