4.7 Article

CpG island methylation is a common finding in colorectal cancer cell lines

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 413-419

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600699

关键词

colorectal carcinoma; methylation; microsatellite instability; CpG island

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tumour cell lines are commonly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) research, including studies designed to assess methylation defects. Although many of the known genetic aberrations in CRC cell lines have been comprehensively described, no studies have been performed on their methylation status. In this study, 30 commonly used CRC cell lines as well as seven primary tumours from individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) were assessed for methylation at six CpG islands known to be hypermethylated in colorectal cancer hMLH1, p16, methylated in tumour (MINT-)-1, -2, -12 and -31. The cell lines were also assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI), ploidy status, hMLH1 expression, and mutations in APC and Ki-ras. Methylation was frequently observed at all examined loci in most cell lines and no differences were observed between germline-derived and sporadic cell lines. Methylation was found at MINT 1 in 63%, MINT 2 in 57%, MINT 12 in 71%. MINT 31 in 53%, p16 in 71%, and hMLH1 in 30% of cell lines. Overall only one cell line, SW1417, did not show methylation at any locus. Methylation was found with equal frequency in MSI and chromosomally unstable lines. MSI was over-rep resented in the cell lines relative to sporadic CRC, being detected in 47% of cell lines. The rate of codon 13 Ki-ras mutations was also over three times that expected from in vivo studies. We conclude that CpG island hypermethylation, whether acquired in vivo or in culture, is a ubiquitous phenomenon in CRC cell lines. We suggest that CRC cell lines may be only representative of a small subset of real tumours, and this should be taken into account in the use of CRC cell lines for epigenetic studies. (C) 2003 Cancer Research UK.

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