4.7 Article

Genome-wide methylation analysis identifies novel prognostic methylation markers in colon adenocarcinoma

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 288-296

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.09.043

关键词

Colon adenocarcinoma; DNA methylation profiles; Methylation markers

资金

  1. Health and Family Planning Commission of Heilongjiang Province Scientific Program [2017-106]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province for Younth [QC2018111]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have indicated that abnormal methylation is a critical and early event in the pathogenesis of most types of human cancer, which contributes to tumorigenesis. However, there has been little focus on the potential of DNA methylation patterns as predictive markers for the prognosis of colon adenocarcinoma (COAD). In the present study, a genome-wide comparative analysis of DNA methylation profiles was performed between 315 COAD samples and 38 matched tumor-adjacent normal tissue samples. A total of 675 differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with 630 genes were identified, including 654 hypermethylated regions (UMRs) and 21 hypomethylated regions, which were capable of distinguishing COAD samples from non-malignant tissue samples. Although most of the DMRs appeared to be located within the gene body or promoter regions, UMRs were mostly located within CpG islands. Functional analysis suggested that genes associated with DMRs were enriched in many of the core cancer-signaling pathways known to be important in COAD biology. A survival analysis was also performed, which identified 7 DMRs as potential candidate markers with the ability to classify patients into high and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival. The present study provides a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying COAD, and demonstrates the utility of aberrant DNA methylation in the prognosis of COAD.

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