BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize gene expression and DNA copy number profiles in androgen sensitive (AS) and androgen insensitive (AI) prostate cancer cell lines on a genome-wide scale. METHODS: Gene expression profiles and DNA copy number changes were examined using DNA microarrays in eight commonly used prostate cancer cell lines. Chromosomal regions with DNA copy number changes were identified using cluster along chromosome (CLAC). RESULTS: There were discrete differences in gene expression patterns between AS and AI cells that were not limited to androgen-responsive genes. AI cells displayed more DNA copy number changes, especially amplifications, than AS cells. The gene expression profiles of cell lines showed limited similarities to prostate tumors harvested at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: AS and AI cell lines are different in their transcriptional programs and degree of DNA copy number alterations. This dataset provides a context for the use of prostate cancer cell lines as models for clinical cancers. (c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize gene expression and DNA copy number profiles in androgen sensitive (AS) and androgen insensitive (AI) prostate cancer cell lines on a genome-wide scale. METHODS: Gene expression profiles and DNA copy number changes were examined using DNA microarrays in eight commonly used prostate cancer cell lines. Chromosomal regions with DNA copy number changes were identified using cluster along chromosome (CLAC). RESULTS: There were discrete differences in gene expression patterns between AS and AI cells that were not limited to androgen-responsive genes. AI cells displayed more DNA copy number changes, especially amplifications, than AS cells. The gene expression profiles of cell lines showed limited similarities to prostate tumors harvested at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: AS and AI cell lines are different in their transcriptional programs and degree of DNA copy number alterations. This dataset provides a context for the use of prostate cancer cell lines as models for clinical cancers. (c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Valerie W Hu; Tewarit Sarachana; Kyung Soon Kim; AnhThu Nguyen; Shreya Kulkarni; Mara E Steinberg; Truong Luu; Yinglei Lai; Norman H Lee Journal: Autism Res Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.216
Authors: D Obinata; K Takayama; K Fujiwara; T Suzuki; S Tsutsumi; N Fukuda; H Nagase; T Fujimura; T Urano; Y Homma; H Aburatani; S Takahashi; S Inoue Journal: Oncogene Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: James D Brooks; Wei Wei; Jonathan R Pollack; Robert B West; Jun Ho Shin; John B Sunwoo; Sarah J Hawley; Heidi Auman; Lisa F Newcomb; Jeff Simko; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Dean A Troyer; Peter R Carroll; Martin E Gleave; Daniel W Lin; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Lawrence D True; Jesse K McKenney; Ziding Feng; Ladan Fazli Journal: Prostate Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Wennuan Liu; Chunmei Carol Xie; Yi Zhu; Tao Li; Jishan Sun; Yu Cheng; Charles M Ewing; Sue Dalrymple; Aubrey R Turner; Jielin Sun; John T Isaacs; Bao-Li Chang; Siqun Lilly Zheng; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Fraser Conrad; Xiaodong Zhu; Xin Zhang; Robert J Chalkley; Alma L Burlingame; James D Marks; Bin Liu Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Yue Xu; Diane R Wagner; Elena Bekerman; Michael Chiou; Aaron W James; Dennis Carter; Michael T Longaker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 3.240