| Literature DB >> 22084565 |
Hongmei Jiang1, Zhong-Zheng Zhu, Yue Yu, Simon Lin, Lifang Hou.
Abstract
Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) allows measuring DNA copy number at the whole genome scale. In cancer studies, one may be interested in identifying DNA copy number aberrations (CNAs) associated with certain clinicopathological characteristics such as cancer metastasis. We proposed to define test regions based on copy number pattern profiles across multiple samples, using either smoothed log(2)-ratio or discrete data of copy number gain/loss calls. Association test performed on the refined test regions instead of the probes has improved power due to reduced number of tests. We also compared three types of measurement of copy number levels, normalized log(2)-ratio, smoothed log(2)-ratio, and copy number gain or loss calls in statistical hypothesis testing. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the proposed method were demonstrated using both simulation studies and real data analysis of a liver cancer study.Entities:
Keywords: DNA copy number aberration (CNA); aCGH; downstream analysis; gain/loss calls; segmentation
Year: 2011 PMID: 22084565 PMCID: PMC3212864 DOI: 10.4137/CIN.S8019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Inform ISSN: 1176-9351
Figure 1An example of DNA copy number profiles for three subjects on 90 consecutive probes. The gray dots are the raw log2-ratios of copy number measurements, the red straight lines represent the smoothed log2-ratios for the identified segments, and the vertical dashed black lines represent the test regions based on the smoothed log2-ratios.
Figure 2Average sensitivity versus different FDR thresholds based on 1000 simulations. Effects of the three types of DNA copy number measurements on the mean sensitiviy: smoothed log2-ratio (square), gain/loss call (diamond), and raw log2-ratio (circle).
Figure 3Average power at each probe using FDR significance level 0.05 based on 1000 simulations using 63 subjects. The three types of DNA copy number measurements: smoothed log2-ratio (square), gain/loss call (diamond), and raw log2-ratio (circle), are compared with respect to average power at probe.
Average power at each probe for the three measurements (smoothed log-ratio, gain/loss call, and raw log-ratio) at FDR significance level 0.05 based on 1000 simulations using 63 subjects and 100 subjects, respectively.
| n = 100 | Smoothed log-ratio | 0.779 | 0.795 | 0.796 | 0.796 | 0.796 | 0.778 |
| Gain/Loss call | 0.730 | 0.746 | 0.745 | 0.745 | 0.743 | 0.720 | |
| n = 63 | Raw log-ratio | 0.581 | 0.566 | 0.594 | 0.589 | 0.57 | 0.566 |
| Smoothed log-ratio | 0.521 | 0.542 | 0.543 | 0.542 | 0.54 | 0.515 | |
| Gain/Loss call | 0.438 | 0.457 | 0.460 | 0.460 | 0.459 | 0.436 | |
| Raw log-ratio | 0.286 | 0.29 | 0.299 | 0.292 | 0.294 | 0.295 |
Figure 4Numbers of statistically significant probes for the liver cancer study. The three types of DNA copy number measurements: smoothed log2-ratio, gain/loss call, and raw log2-ratio, are compared in terms of identification of statistically significant probes.
Clinicopathological characteristics and their association with metastasis.
| Age | 0.096 | |
| ≤ 50 | 31 | |
| > 50 | 32 | |
| Sex | 0.045 | |
| Female | 17 | |
| Male | 46 | |
| Liver cirrhosis | 0.207 | |
| No | 25 | |
| Yes | 38 | |
| Tumor differentiation | 0.157 | |
| II | 13 | |
| III | 50 | |
| Complete envelope | 0.866 | |
| No | 41 | |
| Yes | 22 | |
| Cancer thrombus | 0.474 | |
| Negative | 32 | |
| Positive | 31 | |
| Tumor stage | 0.008 | |
| I | 26 | |
| II | 13 | |
| III or IV | 24 |
Notes:
According to the Edmondson-Steiner grading system;
Cox proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for each other.
The copy number aberrations (CNAs) in association with metastasis.
| 3p14.2 | Loss | 60996566–61019967 | 23 402 | 8.94 (1.73–46.15) | 0.009 |
| 5q13.2 | Loss | 70622715–50716337 | 93 623 | 5.24 (1.18–23.24) | 0.029 |
| 7p15.2 | Loss | 26136974–46162024 | 25 051 | 14.64 (1.52–141.21) | 0.020 |
| 12p13.31-11.22 | Loss | 9626736–69596274 | 19 969 539 | 9.19 (1.41–60.08) | 0.021 |
Notes:
Cytoband and map position are based on the public UCSC database [Human Genome Browser, May 2004 Assembly (hg 17)];
Cox proportional hazard model with the adjustment for sex and tumor stage.