Identification and validation of genes involved in gastric tumorigenesis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer is one of the common cancers seen in south India. Unfortunately more than 90% are advanced by the time they report to a tertiary centre in the country. There is an urgent need to characterize these cancers and try to identify potential biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets.</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>We used 24 gastric cancers, 20 Paired normal (PN) and 5 apparently normal gastric tissues obtained from patients with non-gastric cancers (Apparently normal - AN) for the microarray study followed by validation of the significant genes (n = 63) by relative quantitation using Taqman Low Density Array Real Time PCR. We then used a custom made Quantibody protein array to validate the expression of 15 proteins in gastric tissues (4 AN, 9 PN and 9 gastric cancers). The same array format was used to study the plasma levels of these proteins in 58 patients with gastric cancers and 18 from patients with normal/non-malignant gastric conditions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen genes (ASPN, CCL15/MIP-1δ, MMP3, SPON2, PRSS2, CCL3, TMEPAI/PMEPAI, SIX3, MFNG, SOSTDC1, SGNE1, SST, IGHA1, AKR1B10, FCGBP, ATP4B, NCAPH2) were shown to be differentially expressed between the tumours and the paired normal, for the first time. EpCAM (p = 0.0001), IL8 (p = 0.0003), CCL4/MIP-1β (p = 0.0026), CCL20/MIP-3α (p = 0.039) and TIMP1 (p = 0.0017) tissue protein levels were significantly different (Mann Whitney U test) between tumours versus AN & PN. In addition, median plasma levels of IL8, CXCL9/MIG, CCL3/MIP-1α, CCL20/MIP-3α, PDGFR-B and TIMP1 proteins were significantly different between the non-malignant group and the gastric cancer group. The post-surgical levels of EpCAM, IGFBP3, IL8, CXCL10/IP10, CXCL9/MIG, CCL3/MIP-1α, CCL20/MIP-3α, SPP1/OPN and PDGFR-B showed a uniform drop in all the samples studied.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study has identified several genes differentially expressed in gastric cancers, some for the first time. Some of these have been confirmed at the protein level, as well. Some of these proteins will need to be evaluated further for their potential as diagnostic biomarkers in gastric cancers and some could be useful as follow-up markers in gastric cancer.</p

Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection versus histologic macrodissection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer samples obtained by histologic macrodissection contain a relatively high stromal content that may significantly influence gene expression profiles. Differences between the gene expression signature derived from macrodissected gastric cancer samples and the signature obtained from isolated gastric cancer epithelial cells from the same biopsies using laser-capture microdissection (LCM) were evaluated for their potential experimental biases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RNA was isolated from frozen tissue samples of gastric cancer biopsies from 20 patients using both histologic macrodissection and LCM techniques. RNA from LCM was subject to an additional round of T7 RNA amplification. Expression profiling was performed using Affymetrix HG-U133A arrays. Genes identified in the expression signatures from each tissue processing method were compared to the set of genes contained within chromosomal regions found to harbor copy number aberrations in the tumor samples by array CGH and to proteins previously identified as being overexpressed in gastric cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Genes shown to have increased copy number in gastric cancer were also found to be overexpressed in samples obtained by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>value < 10^-5), but not in array data generated using microdissection. A set of 58 previously identified genes overexpressed in gastric cancer was also enriched in the gene signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10^-5), but not in the signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.013). In contrast, 66 genes previously reported to be underexpressed in gastric cancer were enriched in the gene signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10^-5), but not in the signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.89).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The tumor sampling technique biases the microarray results. LCM may be a more sensitive collection and processing method for the identification of potential tumor suppressor gene candidates in gastric cancer using expression profiling.</p

Gene-Expression Signatures Can Distinguish Gastric Cancer Grades and Stages

Microarray gene-expression data of 54 paired gastric cancer and adjacent noncancerous gastric tissues were analyzed, with the aim to establish gene signatures for cancer grades (well-, moderately-, poorly- or un-differentiated) and stages (I, II, III and IV), which have been determined by pathologists. Our statistical analysis led to the identification of a number of gene combinations whose expression patterns serve well as signatures of different grades and different stages of gastric cancer. A 19-gene signature was found to have discerning power between high- and low-grade gastric cancers in general, with overall classification accuracy at 79.6%. An expanded 198-gene panel allows the stratification of cancers into four grades and control, giving rise to an overall classification agreement of 74.2% between each grade designated by the pathologists and our prediction. Two signatures for cancer staging, consisting of 10 genes and 9 genes, respectively, provide high classification accuracies at 90.0% and 84.0%, among early-, advanced-stage cancer and control. Functional and pathway analyses on these signature genes reveal the significant relevance of the derived signatures to cancer grades and progression. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study on identification of genes whose expression patterns can serve as markers for cancer grades and stages

Effect of myeloid differentiation primary response gene 88 on expression profiles of genes during the development and progression of Helicobacter-induced gastric cancer

Downregulated biological processes and molecular functions in Myd88 −/− mice. Enriched Go terms are shown at both 25 (A, B) and 47 weeks (C, D). Biological processes are depicted in figures A and C while molecular functions are depicted in B and D. These functions were identified using STRING functional annotation tool. Relative scores were calculated using the number of genes found within each process relative to the total number of genes entered into the annotation tool. The top 20 Biological Processes are shown. (PPTX 482 kb

Screening Driving Transcription Factors in the Processing of Gastric Cancer

Background. Construction of the transcriptional regulatory network can provide additional clues on the regulatory mechanisms and therapeutic applications in gastric cancer. Methods. Gene expression profiles of gastric cancer were downloaded from GEO database for integrated analysis. All of DEGs were analyzed by GO enrichment and KEGG pathway enrichment. Transcription factors were further identified and then a global transcriptional regulatory network was constructed. Results. By integrated analysis of the six eligible datasets (340 cases and 43 controls), a bunch of 2327 DEGs were identified, including 2100 upregulated and 227 downregulated DEGs. Functional enrichment analysis of DEGs showed that digestion was a significantly enriched GO term for biological process. Moreover, there were two important enriched KEGG pathways: cell cycle and homologous recombination. Furthermore, a total of 70 differentially expressed TFs were identified and the transcriptional regulatory network was constructed, which consisted of 566 TF-target interactions. The top ten TFs regulating most downstream target genes were BRCA1, ARID3A, EHF, SOX10, ZNF263, FOXL1, FEV, GATA3, FOXC1, and FOXD1. Most of them were involved in the carcinogenesis of gastric cancer. Conclusion. The transcriptional regulatory network can help researchers to further clarify the underlying regulatory mechanisms of gastric cancer tumorigenesis

Integration of DNA Copy Number Alterations and Transcriptional Expression Analysis in Human Gastric Cancer

Background: Genomic instability with frequent DNA copy number alterations is one of the key hallmarks of carcinogenesis. The chromosomal regions with frequent DNA copy number gain and loss in human gastric cancer are still poorly defined. It remains unknown how the DNA copy number variations contributes to the changes of gene expression profiles, especially on the global level. Principal Findings: We analyzed DNA copy number alterations in 64 human gastric cancer samples and 8 gastric cancer cell lines using bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) arrays based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH). Statistical analysis was applied to correlate previously published gene expression data obtained from cDNA microarrays with corresponding DNA copy number variation data to identify candidate oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. We found that gastric cancer samples showed recurrent DNA copy number variations, including gains at 5p, 8q, 20p, 20q, and losses at 4q, 9p, 18q, 21q. The most frequent regions of amplification were 20q12 (7/72), 20q12-20q13.1 (12/72), 20q13.1-20q13.2 (11/72) and 20q13.2-20q13.3 (6/72). The most frequent deleted region was 9p21 (8/72). Correlating gene expression array data with aCGH identified 321 candidate oncogenes, which were overexpressed and showed frequent DNA copy number gains; and 12 candidate tumor suppressor genes which were down-regulated and showed frequent DNA copy number losses in human gastric cancers. Three networks of significantly expressed genes in gastric cancer samples were identified by ingenuity pathway analysis. Conclusions: This study provides insight into DNA copy number variations and their contribution to altered gene expression profiles during human gastric cancer development. It provides novel candidate driver oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes for human gastric cancer, useful pathway maps for the future understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of this malignancy, and the construction of new therapeutic targets. © 2012 Fan et al.published_or_final_versio

Profiling age-related epigenetic markers of stomach adenocarcinoma in young and old subjects

The purpose of our study is to identify epigenetic markers that are differently expressed in the stomach adenocarcinoma (STAD) condition. Based on data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we were able to detect an age-related difference in methylation patterns and changes in gene and miRNA expression levels in young (n = 14) and old (n = 70) STAD subjects. Our analysis identified 323 upregulated and 653 downregulated genes in old STAD subjects. We also found 76 miRNAs with age-related expression patterns and 113 differentially methylated genes (DMGs), respectively. Our further analysis revealed that significant upregulated genes (n = 35) were assigned to the cell cycle, while the muscle system process (n = 27) and cell adhesion-related genes (n = 57) were downregulated. In addition, by comparing gene and miRNA expression with methylation change, we identified that three upregulated genes (ELF3, IL1??, and MMP13) known to be involved in inflammatory responses and cell growth were significantly hypomethylated in the promoter region. We further detected target candidates for age-related, downregulated miRNAs (hsa-mir-124-3, hsa-mir-204, and hsa-mir-125b-2) in old STAD subjects. This is the first report of the results from a study exploring age-related epigenetic biomarkers of STAD using high-throughput data and provides evidence for a complex clinicopathological condition expressed by the age-related STAD progression. &amp;copy; the authors, publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Limitedopen

A Gene Expression Signature of Acquired Chemoresistance to Cisplatin and Fluorouracil Combination Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer Patients

We initiated a prospective trial to identify transcriptional alterations associated with acquired chemotherapy resistance from pre- and post-biopsy samples from the same patient and uncover potential molecular pathways involved in treatment failure to help guide therapeutic alternatives.A prospective, high-throughput transcriptional profiling study was performed using endoscopic biopsy samples from 123 metastatic gastric cancer patients prior to cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF) combination chemotherapy. 22 patients who initially responded to CF were re-biopsied after they developed resistance to CF. An acquired chemotherapy resistance signature was identified by analyzing the gene expression profiles from the matched pre- and post-CF treated samples. The acquired resistance signature was able to segregate a separate cohort of 101 newly-diagnosed gastric cancer patients according to the time to progression after CF. Hierarchical clustering using a 633-gene acquired resistance signature (feature selection at P<0.01) separated the 101 pretreatment patient samples into two groups with significantly different times to progression (2.5 vs. 4.7 months). This 633-gene signature included the upregulation of AKT1, EIF4B, and RPS6 (mTOR pathway), DNA repair and drug metabolism genes, and was enriched for genes overexpressed in embryonic stem cell signatures. A 72-gene acquired resistance signature (a subset of the 633 gene signature also identified in ES cell-related gene sets) was an independent predictor for time to progression (adjusted P = 0.011) and survival (adjusted P = 0.034) of these 101 patients.This signature may offer new insights into identifying new targets and therapies required to overcome the acquired resistance of gastric cancer to CF