4.7 Article

MDS and secondary AML display unique patterns and abundance of aberrant DNA methylation

期刊

BLOOD
卷 114, 期 16, 页码 3448-3458

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-200519

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Society of Hematology Fellow Scholar Award [R01 CA104348, R01 HD044078, R21 CA110507, K24 CA111717, U01CA70095, U24 CA114737]
  2. National Cancer Institute [CA21115]
  3. Chemotherapy Foundation
  4. Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation
  5. GP Foundation
  6. Burroughs Welcome Clinical Scientist Award
  7. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Scholar Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence shows aberrant hypermethylation of genes occurring in and potentially contributing to pathogenesis of myeloid malignancies. Several of these diseases, such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), are responsive to DNA methyltransferase inhibitors. To determine the extent of promoter hypermethylation in such tumors, we compared the distribution of DNA methylation of 14 000 promoters in MDS and secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients enrolled in a phase 1 trial of 5-azacytidine and the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat against de novo AML patients and normal CD34(+) bone marrow cells. The MDS and secondary AML patients displayed more extensive aberrant DNA methylation involving thousands of genes than did the normal CD34(+) bone marrow cells or de novo AML blasts. Aberrant methylation in MDS and secondary AML tended to affect particular chromosomal regions, occurred more frequently in Alu-poor genes, and included prominent involvement of genes involved in the WNT and MAPK signaling pathways. DNA methylation was also measured at days 15 and 29 after the first treatment cycle. DNA methylation was reversed at day 15 in a uniform manner throughout the genome, and this effect persisted through day 29, even without continuous administration of the study drugs. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as J0443. (Blood. 2009;114:3448-3458)

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