4.7 Article

Gene expression profiling of human plasma cell differentiation and classification of multiple myeloma based on similarities to distinct stages of late-stage B-cell development

期刊

BLOOD
卷 101, 期 3, 页码 1128-1140

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-06-1737

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA55819, CA97513] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify genes linked to normal plasma cell (PC) differentiation and to classify multiple myeloma (MM) with respect to the expression patterns of these genes, we analyzed global mRNA expression in CD19-enriched B cells (BCs) from 7 tonsils, CD138-enriched PCs from 11 tonsils, 31 normal bone marrow samples, and 74 MM bone marrow samples using microarrays interrogating 6800 genes. Hierarchical clustering analyses with 3288 genes clearly segregated the 4 cell types, and chi-square and Wilcoxin rank sum tests (P <.0005) identified 359 and 500 previously defined and novel genes that distinguish tonsil BCs from tonsil PCs (early differentiation genes [EDGs]), and tonsil PCs from bone marrow PCs (late differentiation genes [LDGs]), respectively. MM as a whole was found to have dramatically variable expression of EDGs and LDGs, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify the most variable EDGs (vEDGs) and LDGs (v1LDG and v2LDG). Hierarchical cluster analysis with these genes revealed that previously defined MM gene expression subgroups (MM1-MM4) could be linked to one of the 3 normal cell types. Clustering with 30 vEDGs revealed that 13 of 18 MM4 cases clustered with tonsil BCs (P =.000 05), whereas 14 of 15 MM3 cases clustered with tonsil PCs when using 50 v1LDG (P =.000 008), and 14 of 20 MM2 cases clustered with bone marrow PCs when using 50 v2LDG (P =.000 09). MM1 showed no significant linkage with normal cell types studied. Thus, genes whose expression is linked to distinct transitions in late-stage B-cell differentiation can be used to classify MM. (C) 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.

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