4.7 Article

Distinct BRAF (V600E) and KRAS Mutations in High Microsatellite Instability Sporadic Colorectal Cancer in African Americans

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 1155-1161

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1029

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, NIH [CA102681]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Colorectal cancer develops through genetic, epigenetic, and environmental events that result in uncontrolled cell proliferation. Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality is higher in African Americans (AA) than in the general population. Here, we carried out a molecular analysis of sporadic colorectal cancer tumors from AAs to investigate possible explanations for the observed disparities. Experimental Design: A total of 222 AA colorectal cancer tumors were analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI) for protein expression of two DNA mismatch repair genes, MLH1 and MSH2, by immunohistochemistry; for the methylation silencing of MLH1, p16, APC, and APC2 promoters by methylation-specific PCR; and for point Mutations in two oncogenes, KRAS and BRAF; by sequencing. Results: In our sample, 19.8% of the AAs colorectal cancer tumors were MSI high (MSI-H) and did not associate with any of the clinicopathologic features, except tumor differentiation. Higher levels of inactive DNA mismatch repair proteins MLH1 (41%) and MSH2 (33%) were found by immunohistochemistry. Methylation-specific PCR analysis revealed a high level of methylation for MLH1 (66%), APC (53%), and APC2 (90%), but not for p16 (26%). BRAF mutations were only within the MSI-H tumors, whereas most (64%) of KRAS mutations were found within the non - MSI-H group. Conclusions: MLH1, MSH2, and BRAF alterations are significantly associated with MSI-H phenotype, unlike APC, APC2 and KRAS alterations. The prominent role of DNA mismatch repair gene suppression in MSI-H and a distinctive role of BRAF and KRAS mutations with respect to MSI status are supported by this study.

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