4.8 Article

Correlation Analysis between Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism and Expression Arrays in Gliomas Identifies Potentially Relevant Target Genes

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 1596-1603

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2496

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary brain tumors are a major cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Therapy for gliomas, the most common type of primary brain tumors, remains suboptimal. The development of improved therapeutics will require greater knowledge of the biology of gliomas at both the genomic and transcriptional levels. We have previously reported whole genome profiling of chromosome copy number alterations (CNA) in gliomas, and now present our findings on how those changes may affect transcription of genes that may be involved in tumor induction and progression. By calculating correlation values of mRNA expression versus DNA copy number average in a moving window around a given RNA probe set, biologically relevant information can be gained that is obscured by the analysis of a single data type. Correlation coefficients ranged from -0.6 to 0.7, highly significant when compared with previous studies. Most correlated genes are located on chromosomes 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22, chromosomes known to have genomic alterations in gliomas. Additionally, we were able to identify CNAs whose gene expression correlation suggests possible epigenetic regulation. This analysis revealed a number of interesting candidates such as CXCL12, PTER, and LRRN6C, among others. The results have been verified using real-time PCR and methylation sequencing assays. These data will further help differentiate genes involved in the induction and/or maintenance of the tumorigenic process from those that are mere passenger mutations, thereby enriching for a population of potentially new therapeutic molecular targets. [Cancer Res 2009;69(4):1596-603]

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