OBJECTIVE: MLH1 methylation is associated with the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia, a premalignant precursor to carcinoma. The observation that methylation is also seen in atypical endometrial hyperplasia without MSI suggests that methylation is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Our objective was to determine if methylation is always present in MSI-positive atypical hyperplasia concomitant with MSI-positive, methylation-positive carcinoma. METHODS: We used laser capture microdissection to study MLH1 methylation and MSI in a large series of endometrial cancer cases that had previously been shown to have methylation and the MSI-high (MSI-H) phenotype. We resampled areas of carcinoma from 27 patients along with 51 foci of concomitant atypical endometrial hyperplasia. RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, we saw MLH1 methylation in areas of atypical endometrial hyperplasia that did not show MSI. In addition, we noted that 18% of the MSI-H atypical endometrial hyperplasia DNAs lacked methylation of critical cytosines in the MLH1 promoter. Immunohistochemistry studies showed that these MSI-H unmethylated foci of atypical endometrial hyperplasia failed to express MLH1, as did regions of simple hyperplasia. CONCLUSION: Methylation of the MLH1 promoter is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Given that not all MSI-positive tissues had methylation at cytosines -229 and -231, it appears that methylation may not be required for MLH1 silencing and loss of mismatch repair. (c) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).
OBJECTIVE:MLH1 methylation is associated with the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia, a premalignant precursor to carcinoma. The observation that methylation is also seen in atypical endometrial hyperplasia without MSI suggests that methylation is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Our objective was to determine if methylation is always present in MSI-positive atypical hyperplasia concomitant with MSI-positive, methylation-positive carcinoma. METHODS: We used laser capture microdissection to study MLH1 methylation and MSI in a large series of endometrial cancer cases that had previously been shown to have methylation and the MSI-high (MSI-H) phenotype. We resampled areas of carcinoma from 27 patients along with 51 foci of concomitant atypical endometrial hyperplasia. RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, we saw MLH1 methylation in areas of atypical endometrial hyperplasia that did not show MSI. In addition, we noted that 18% of the MSI-H atypical endometrial hyperplasia DNAs lacked methylation of critical cytosines in the MLH1 promoter. Immunohistochemistry studies showed that these MSI-H unmethylated foci of atypical endometrial hyperplasia failed to express MLH1, as did regions of simple hyperplasia. CONCLUSION: Methylation of the MLH1 promoter is an early event in endometrial tumorigenesis. Given that not all MSI-positive tissues had methylation at cytosines -229 and -231, it appears that methylation may not be required for MLH1 silencing and loss of mismatch repair. (c) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).
Authors: Yongchao Dou; Emily A Kawaler; Daniel Cui Zhou; Marina A Gritsenko; Chen Huang; Lili Blumenberg; Alla Karpova; Vladislav A Petyuk; Sara R Savage; Shankha Satpathy; Wenke Liu; Yige Wu; Chia-Feng Tsai; Bo Wen; Zhi Li; Song Cao; Jamie Moon; Zhiao Shi; MacIntosh Cornwell; Matthew A Wyczalkowski; Rosalie K Chu; Suhas Vasaikar; Hua Zhou; Qingsong Gao; Ronald J Moore; Kai Li; Sunantha Sethuraman; Matthew E Monroe; Rui Zhao; David Heiman; Karsten Krug; Karl Clauser; Ramani Kothadia; Yosef Maruvka; Alexander R Pico; Amanda E Oliphant; Emily L Hoskins; Samuel L Pugh; Sean J I Beecroft; David W Adams; Jonathan C Jarman; Andy Kong; Hui-Yin Chang; Boris Reva; Yuxing Liao; Dmitry Rykunov; Antonio Colaprico; Xi Steven Chen; Andrzej Czekański; Marcin Jędryka; Rafał Matkowski; Maciej Wiznerowicz; Tara Hiltke; Emily Boja; Christopher R Kinsinger; Mehdi Mesri; Ana I Robles; Henry Rodriguez; David Mutch; Katherine Fuh; Matthew J Ellis; Deborah DeLair; Mathangi Thiagarajan; D R Mani; Gad Getz; Michael Noble; Alexey I Nesvizhskii; Pei Wang; Matthew L Anderson; Douglas A Levine; Richard D Smith; Samuel H Payne; Kelly V Ruggles; Karin D Rodland; Li Ding; Bing Zhang; Tao Liu; David Fenyö Journal: Cell Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Shujuan Jiang; Sean C Dowdy; Xue W Meng; Zhaoyu Wang; Monica B Jones; Karl C Podratz; Shi-Wen Jiang Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anita Steinbakk; Anais Malpica; Aida Slewa; Einar Gudlaugsson; Emiel A M Janssen; Mark Arends; Arnold Jan Kruse; Yu Yinhua; Weiwei Feng; Jan P Baak Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nicolas Wentzensen; Matthew J Maurer; Kieran M Hawthorne; Jesse S Voss; Trynda N Kroneman; Abimbola O Famuyide; Amy C Clayton; Kevin C Halling; Sarah E Kerr; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Benjamin R Kipp; Andrea Mariani; Ann L Oberg; Karl C Podratz; Viji Shridhar; Mark E Sherman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lisa K Nees; Sabine Heublein; Sahra Steinmacher; Ingolf Juhasz-Böss; Sara Brucker; Clemens B Tempfer; Markus Wallwiener Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 2.493