BACKGROUND: Despite intensive studies over many years, there is only limited knowledge on the genetic changes underlying the development and progression of prostate cancer. No specific prostate carcinoma-related genetic event has yet been identified. METHODS: In order to gain an overall view of regional chromosome gains and losses, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was used on a series of 16 prostate adenocarcinomas. Five benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) samples were also evaluated. RESULTS: Using CGH, chromosome alterations were observed in 81% of the prostate carcinomas analyzed. Gains of DNA copy numbers were found as the predominant imbalance, with chromosomes 3q (56%), 12q (56%), 8q (50%), Xq (50%), 4 (44%), 6q (44%), 5 (38%), 7q (38%), 9p (38%), and 13q (31%) being most frequently involved. Whereas DNA copy number gains comprised the whole chromosome or almost a whole arm of chromosomes 4, 5, 6, 9, and 13, the minimal overlapping regions on the other chromosomes were mapped to 3q25-q26, 8q21-q22, 12q13-q21, 7q31, and Xq22-q25. High-level amplifications were not found. Other chromosomes with nonrandom gains or losses of DNA sequences were discovered. The five BPH samples were found to be normal. CONCLUSIONS: Amplification events at different chromosomal sites seem important in prostate cancer development. A new chromosome region with DNA copy number gains was identified on 12q, while other regions on 3q, 7q, 8q, and Xq were confirmed or narrowed down, indicating a possible role of known or putative protooncogenes in these regions for prostate cancer growth. Our low detection rate of DNA losses may to some part be explained by CGH immanent technical limitations.
BACKGROUND: Despite intensive studies over many years, there is only limited knowledge on the genetic changes underlying the development and progression of prostate cancer. No specific prostate carcinoma-related genetic event has yet been identified. METHODS: In order to gain an overall view of regional chromosome gains and losses, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was used on a series of 16 prostate adenocarcinomas. Five benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) samples were also evaluated. RESULTS: Using CGH, chromosome alterations were observed in 81% of the prostate carcinomas analyzed. Gains of DNA copy numbers were found as the predominant imbalance, with chromosomes 3q (56%), 12q (56%), 8q (50%), Xq (50%), 4 (44%), 6q (44%), 5 (38%), 7q (38%), 9p (38%), and 13q (31%) being most frequently involved. Whereas DNA copy number gains comprised the whole chromosome or almost a whole arm of chromosomes 4, 5, 6, 9, and 13, the minimal overlapping regions on the other chromosomes were mapped to 3q25-q26, 8q21-q22, 12q13-q21, 7q31, and Xq22-q25. High-level amplifications were not found. Other chromosomes with nonrandom gains or losses of DNA sequences were discovered. The five BPH samples were found to be normal. CONCLUSIONS: Amplification events at different chromosomal sites seem important in prostate cancer development. A new chromosome region with DNA copy number gains was identified on 12q, while other regions on 3q, 7q, 8q, and Xq were confirmed or narrowed down, indicating a possible role of known or putative protooncogenes in these regions for prostate cancer growth. Our low detection rate of DNA losses may to some part be explained by CGH immanent technical limitations.
Authors: Leila Alland; Gregory David; Hong Shen-Li; Jason Potes; Rebecca Muhle; Hye-Chun Lee; Harry Hou; Ken Chen; Ronald A DePinho Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Claire L Simpson; Cheryl D Cropp; Tiina Wahlfors; Asha George; Marypat S Jones; Ursula Harper; Damaris Ponciano-Jackson; Teuvo Tammela; Johanna Schleutker; Joan E Bailey-Wilson Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Tamra E Meyer; Eric Boerwinkle; Alanna C Morrison; Kelly A Volcik; Maureen Sanderson; Ann L Coker; James S Pankow; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Meera Nanjundan; Kwai Wa Cheng; Fan Zhang; John Lahad; Wen-Lin Kuo; Rosemarie Schmandt; Karen Smith-McCune; David Fishman; Joe W Gray; Gordon B Mills Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2008-05-10 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Matteo Fassan; Domenico D'Arca; Juraj Letko; Andrea Vecchione; Marina P Gardiman; Peter McCue; Bernadette Wildemore; Massimo Rugge; Dolores Shupp-Byrne; Leonard G Gomella; Andrea Morrione; Renato V Iozzo; Raffaele Baffa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Muhan Chen; Jian-Dong Huang; Hong Kui Deng; Suisui Dong; Wen Deng; Sze Lan Tsang; Michael S Y Huen; Leilei Chen; Tong Zan; Gui-Xia Zhu; Xin-Yuan Guan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 4.430