4.7 Article

Methylation profiling in acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

BLOOD
卷 97, 期 9, 页码 2823-2829

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.9.2823

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-32102, CA-38926] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aberrant methylation of multiple CpG islands has been described in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but it is not known whether these are independent events or whether they reflect specific methylation defects in a subset of cases. To study this issue, the methylation status of 14 promoter-associated CpG islands was analyzed in 36 cases of AML previously characterized for estrogen-receptor methylation (ERM). Cases with methylation density of 10% or greater were considered positive. Seventeen cases (47%) were ERM+ while 19 cases were ERM-. Hypermethylation of any of the following, p15, p16, CACNA1g, MINT1, MINT2, MDR1, THBS1, and PTC1 (2 promoters), was relatively infrequent (6% to 31% of patients). For each of these CpG islands, the methylation density was positively correlated with ERM density (rank order correlation coefficients, 0.32-0.59; 2-tailed P less than or equal to .058 for each gene). Hypermethylation of MYOD1, PITX2, GPR37, and SDC4 was frequently found in AML (47% to 64% of patients). For each of these genes as well, methylation density was positively correlated with ERM density (correlation coefficients 0.43 to 0.69, P less than or equal to .0087 for each gene). MLH1 was unmethylated in all cases. Hypermethylation of p15, MDR1, and SDC4 correlated with reduced levels of expression. There was an inverse correlation between age and the number of genes methylated (P=.0030). It was concluded that CpG-island methylation in AML results from methylation defects in subsets of cases. These results have potential implications for the classification and prognosis of AML and for the identification of patients who may benefit from treatment with methylation inhibitors. (Blood, 2001;97:2823-2829) (C) 2001 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