Literature DB >> 11221848

Loss of heterozygosity mapping at chromosome arm 16q in 712 breast tumors reveals factors that influence delineation of candidate regions.

A M Cleton-Jansen1, D F Callen, R Seshadri, S Goldup, B Mccallum, J Crawford, J A Powell, C Settasatian, H van Beerendonk, E W Moerland, V T Smit, W H Harris, R Millis, N V Morgan, D Barnes, C G Mathew, C J Cornelisse.   

Abstract

Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at the long arm of chromosome 16 occurs in at least half of all breast tumors and is considered to target one or more tumor suppressor genes. Despite extensive studies by us and by others, a clear consensus of the boundaries of the smallest region of overlap (SRO) could not be identified. To find more solid evidence for SROs, we tested a large series of 712 breast tumors for LOH at 16q using a dense map of polymorphic markers. Strict criteria for LOH and retention were applied, and results that did not meet these criteria were excluded from the analysis. We compared LOH results obtained from samples with different DNA isolation methods, ie., from microdissected tissue versus total tissue blocks. In the latter group, 16% of the cases were excluded because of noninterpretable LOH results. The selection of polymorphic markers is clearly influencing the LOH pattern because a chromosomal region seems more frequently involved in LOH when many markers from this region are used. The LOH detection method, i.e., radioactive versus fluorescence detection, has no marked effect on the results. Increasing the threshold window for retention of heterozygosity resulted in significantly more cases with complex LOH, i.e., several alternating regions of loss and retention, than seen in tumors with a small window for retention. Tumors with complex LOH do not provide evidence for clear-cut SROs that are repeatedly found in other samples. On disregarding these complex cases, we could identify three different SROs, two at band 16q24.3 and one at 16q22.1. In all three tumor series, we found cases with single LOH regions that designated the distal region at 16q24.3 and the region at 16q22.1. Comparing histological data on these tumors did not result in the identification of a particular subtype with LOH at 16q or a specific region involved in LOH. Only the rare mucinous tumors had no 16q LOH at all. Furthermore, a positive estrogen content is prevalent in tumors with 16q LOH, but not in tumors with LOH at 16q24.3 only.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11221848

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  23 in total

Review 1.  Involvement of members of the cadherin superfamily in cancer.

Authors:  Geert Berx; Frans van Roy
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 10.005

2.  Mass spectrometry-based loss of heterozygosity analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphism loci in paraffin embedded tumors using the MassEXTEND assay: single-nucleotide polymorphism loss of heterozygosity analysis of the protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor type J in familial colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Marjo van Puijenbroek; Jan Willem F Dierssen; Patrick Stanssens; Ronald van Eijk; Anne Marie Cleton-Jansen; Tom van Wezel; Hans Morreau
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.568

3.  Tumor suppressor SMAR1 mediates cyclin D1 repression by recruitment of the SIN3/histone deacetylase 1 complex.

Authors:  Shravanti Rampalli; L Pavithra; Altaf Bhatt; Tapas K Kundu; Samit Chattopadhyay
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.272

4.  Is gastric cancer part of the tumour spectrum of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer? A molecular genetic study.

Authors:  A Gylling; W M Abdel-Rahman; M Juhola; K Nuorva; E Hautala; H J Järvinen; J-P Mecklin; M Aarnio; P Peltomäki
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  A comprehensive study of chromosome 16q in invasive ductal and lobular breast carcinoma using array CGH.

Authors:  R Roylance; P Gorman; T Papior; Y-L Wan; M Ives; J E Watson; C Collins; N Wortham; C Langford; H Fiegler; N Carter; C Gillett; P Sasieni; S Pinder; A Hanby; I Tomlinson
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 9.867

6.  Multiplex loss of heterozygosity analysis by using single or very few cells.

Authors:  Xiangfeng Cui; Helen Feiner; Honghua Li
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 7.  Emerging roles of E2Fs in cancer: an exit from cell cycle control.

Authors:  Hui-Zi Chen; Shih-Yin Tsai; Gustavo Leone
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Cloning and mutation analysis of ZFP276 as a candidate tumor suppressor in breast cancer.

Authors:  Jasmine C Y Wong; Nalan Gokgoz; Noa Alon; Irene L Andrulis; Manuel Buchwald
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-11-07       Impact factor: 3.172

9.  Potential role of a navigator gene NAV3 in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  E Carlsson; A Ranki; L Sipilä; L Karenko; W M Abdel-Rahman; K Ovaska; L Siggberg; U Aapola; R Ässämäki; V Häyry; K Niiranen; M Helle; S Knuutila; S Hautaniemi; P Peltomäki; K Krohn
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Expression analysis of candidate breast tumour suppressor genes on chromosome 16q.

Authors:  Tom van Wezel; Marcel Lombaerts; Eddy H van Roon; Katja Philippo; Hans J Baelde; Karoly Szuhai; Cees J Cornelisse; Anne-Marie Cleton-Jansen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-10-18       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.