4.8 Article

Genome-wide copy number analysis in esophageal adenocarcinoma using high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 11, 页码 4163-4172

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6710

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 001833-03, R01 CA001833] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied whole-genome single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays to define a comprehensive genetic profile of 23 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) primary tumor biopsies based on loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and DNA copy number changes. Alterations were common, averaging 97 (range, 23-208) per tumor. LOH and gains averaged 33 (range, 3-83) and 31 (range, 11-73) per tumor, respectively. Copy neutral LOH events averaged 27 (range, 7-57) per EAC. We noted 126 homozygous deletions (HD) across the EAC panel (range, 0-11 in individual tumors). Frequent HDs within FHIT (17 of 23), WWOX (8 of 23), and DMD (6 of 23) suggest a role for common fragile sites or genomic instability in EAC etiology. HDs were also noted for known tumor suppressor genes (TSG), including CDKN2A, CDKN2B, SMAD4, and GALR1, and identified PDE4D and MGC48628 as potentially novel TSGs. All tumors showed LOH for most of chromosome 17p, suggesting that TSGs other than TP53 may be targeted. Frequent gains were noted around MYC (13 of 23), BCL9 (12 of 23), CTAGE1 (14 of 23), and ZNF217 (12 of 23). Thus, we have confirmed previous reports indicating frequent changes to FHIT, CDKN2A, TP53, and MYC in EAC and identified additional genes of interest. Meta-analysis of previous genome-wide EAC studies together with the data presented here highlighted consistent regions of gain on 8q, 18q, and 20q and multiple LOH regions on 4q, 5q, 17p, and 18q, suggesting that more than one gene may be targeted on each of these chromosome arms. The focal gains and deletions documented here are a step toward identifying the key genes involved in EAC development.

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

4.8
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