| Literature DB >> 23806198 |
James F Amatruda1, Julie A Ross, Brock Christensen, Nicholas J Fustino, Kenneth S Chen, Anthony J Hooten, Heather Nelson, Jacquelyn K Kuriger, Dinesh Rakheja, A Lindsay Frazier, Jenny N Poynter.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aberrant DNA methylation is a prominent feature of many cancers, and may be especially relevant in germ cell tumors (GCTs) due to the extensive epigenetic reprogramming that occurs in the germ line during normal development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23806198 PMCID: PMC3701494 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Selected characteristics of the study samples
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | 8 | 14 | 10 | |
| | | | | |
| 1 (0 – 19) | 5 (0 – 21) | 4.5 (0 – 15) | 12 (7 – 17) | |
| | | | | |
| 10 (53) | 1 (87) | 4 (29) | 0 | |
| 9 (47) | 7 (12) | 10 (71) | 10 (100) | |
| | | | | |
| 4 (21) | 4 (50) | 6 (43) | 10 (100) | |
| 6 (32) | 1 (12) | 0 | 0 | |
| 9 (47) | 3 (37) | 8 (57) | 0 |
Figure 1Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of CpG methylation in GCTs by tumor histology. Heat map from unsupervised hierarchical clustering based on Manhattan distance and average linkage of the 1404 autosomal CpG loci that passed initial quality control checks. Colored bars represent histologic subtype of the tumor. Light purple represents mature teratoma, dark purple represents immature teratoma, orange represents germinoma and red represents yolk sac tumor. Samples are in columns (N = 51) and CpG loci are in rows. Blue indicates high level of methylation (51-100%), black equals 50% methylation, and yellow indicates low level of methylation (0-49%).
Figure 2Recursively partitioned mixture model (RPMM) of CpG methylation in GCTs. A. Columns represent methylation class generated by RPMM and rows represent the average methylation within the class at each CpG site. Blue represents methylated and yellow represents unmethylated. The width of the row is proportional to the number of samples included in the methylation class. B. Characteristics of the tumors in each methylation class.
Top 23 genes with differential methylation in YST
| 3.69 | <2.2E-16 | 0.86 | 0.81 | |
| 3.41 | <2.2E-16 | 0.86 | 0.83 | |
| 3.16 | <2.2E-16 | 0.87 | 0.79 | |
| 3.13 | <2.2E-16 | 0.74 | 0.54 | |
| 3.13 | <2.2E-16 | 0.67 | 0.78 | |
| 3.12 | <2.2E-16 | 0.82 | 0.74 | |
| 3.05 | <2.2E-16 | 0.80 | 0.77 | |
| 2.99 | <2.2E-16 | 0.78 | 0.76 | |
| 2.98 | <2.2E-16 | 0.81 | 0.71 | |
| 2.96 | <2.2E-16 | 0.78 | 0.75 | |
| 2.95 | <2.2E-16 | 0.67 | 0.55 | |
| 2.92 | <2.2E-16 | 0.81 | 0.75 | |
| 2.90 | <2.2E-16 | 0.82 | 0.70 | |
| 2.90 | <2.2E-16 | 0.81 | 0.44 | |
| 2.88 | <2.2E-16 | 0.83 | 0.65 | |
| 2.87 | <2.2E-16 | 0.80 | 0.75 | |
| 2.86 | <2.2E-16 | 0.79 | 0.70 | |
| 2.83 | <2.2E-16 | 0.78 | 0.73 | |
| 2.80 | <2.2E-16 | 0.64 | 0.73 | |
| 2.79 | <2.2E-16 | 0.78 | 0.73 | |
| 2.77 | <2.2E-16 | 0.80 | 0.75 | |
| 2.75 | <2.2E-16 | 0.83 | 0.06 | |
| 2.75 | <2.2E-16 | 0.84 | 0.79 |
a Indicates the adjusted fold change in the β value in the YST compared with the other histologic subtypes of GCT.
b Indicates the change in the β value in the tumor sample compared to the paired normal adjacent in the two YST with available normal tissue.
Figure 3Correlation of methylation status and expression level for selected Wnt pathway genes. A. Log2fold-change in expression of selected Wnt pathway genes in GER compared to YST plotted as a function of methylation level (expressed as the mean delta LOD). Of the 24 genes profiles, 12 exhibit higher expression and less methylation in YSTs (gray rectangle). B. Unsupervised clustering of Wnt pathway gene expression in pediatric gem cell tumors. The genes shown are differentially expressed in germinomas compared to yolk sac tumors (p ≤ 0.05 by two-tailed t-test). Red indicates high expression and green low expression.
Significantly enriched pathways with reduced methylation in immature teratomas compared with mature teratomas
| Role of Oct4 in Mammalian Embryonic Stem Cell Pluripotency | SOX2,CASP6,SPP1,BMI1,RARA,PARP1 | 0.0015 |
| Axonal Guidance Signaling | GLI2,BMP4,BDNF,BMP2,PIK3R1,EGF,VEGFB,KRAS,LIMK1,PTCH2,EPHB1,GLI3,NGFR,DCC,EFNB3,ERBB2,ITGB1,TUBB3,WNT2B,MMP10,EPHA3,PDGFB,NTRK2,EPHA5,EPHA2 | 0.0045 |
| Human Embryonic Stem Cell Pluripotency | BMP4,BDNF,BMP2,PIK3R1,FGFR1,WNT2B,TDGF1,FGFR2,PDGFB,APC,SOX2,FGFR3,NTRK2,PDGFRA,CTNNB1,PDGFRB | 0.0084 |
| PAK Signaling | ITGB1,MYLK,PIK3R1,PDGFRA,KRAS,EPHA3,TNF,PDGFB,PDGFRB,LIMK1 | 0.01 |
| PDGF Signaling | ABL2,PIK3R1,MAP3K1,PDGFRA,CAV1,KRAS,EIF2AK2,PDGFB,PDGFRB | 0.01 |
| NF-κB Signaling | MAP2K6,BMP4,BMP2,PIK3R1,FGFR1,EGF,FGFR2,KRAS,DDR1,FGFR3,NTRK2,NGFR,KDR,INS,PDGFRA,EIF2AK2,TNF,PDGFRB | 0.02 |
| PTEN Signaling | ITGB1,PIK3R1,FGFR1,FGFR2,KRAS,CCND1,DDR1,FGFR3,NTRK2,NGFR,KDR,PDGFRA,PDGFRB | 0.03 |
| Transcriptional Regulatory Network in Embryonic Stem Cells | SOX2,ISL1,PAX6 | 0.03 |
| Estrogen Biosynthesis | CYP2E1,HSD17B12,CYP1B1 | 0.03 |
| HER-2 Signaling in Breast Cancer | ITGB1,PIK3R1,EGF,KRAS,ERBB3,ERBB2,CCND1,AREG/AREGB | 0.04 |
| Gap Junction Signaling | TUBB3,GUCY2D,PIK3R1,CAV1,EGF,KRAS,CTNNB1,HTR2A | 0.04 |
| Actin Cytoskeleton Signaling | ITGB1,MYLK,PIK3R1,FGF9,INS,EGF,KRAS,PDGFB,APC,FGF1,LIMK1,MATK | 0.04 |
| Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation into Cardiac Lineages | SOX2,ISL1 | 0.04 |
Methylation in imprinted genes by tumor location and histology
| | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | ||||
| | | | | | ||
| | | | | | | |
| 2 (25) | 4 (67) | 9 (90) | 1 (12) | 2 (50) | 1 (25) | |
| 6 (75) | 2 (33) | 1 (10) | 7 (88) | 1 (25) | 3 (75) | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (25) | 0 | |
| | | | | 0.003 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 4 (50) | 5 (83) | 9 (90) | 2 (29) | 2 (50) | 3 (75) | |
| 4 (50) | 1 (17) | 1 (10) | 5 (71) | 2 (50) | 1 (25) | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| | | | | 0.04 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 2 (29) | 4 (67) | 8 (80) | 1 (12) | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 (71) | 2 (33) | 2 (20) | 7 (88) | 4 (100) | 4 (100) | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| | | | | 0.02 | | |
| | | | | | ||
| | | | | | | |
| 2 (25) | 4 (67) | 0 | 3 (37) | 3 (75) | 1 (25) | |
| 6 (75) | 2 (33) | 2 (20) | 5 (63) | 0 | 3 (75) | |
| 0 | 0 | 8 (80) | 0 | 1 (25) | 0 | |
| | | | | <0.0001 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 0 | 6 100) | 0 | 1 (12) | 0 | 0 | |
| 6 (75) | 0 | 1 (10) | 7 (88) | 1 (33) | 4 (100) | |
| 2 (25) | 0 | 9 (90) | 0 | 2 (67) | 0 | |
| | | | | <0.0001 | | |
| | | | | | | |
| 3 (38) | 6 (100) | 1 (10) | 2 (25) | 4 (100) | 0 | |
| 5 (62) | 0 | 0 | 6 (75) | 0 | 4 (100) | |
| 0 | 0 | 9 (90) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| <0.0001 | ||||||
1Categories represent three methylation states based on the average percent methylation across all CpG loci analyzed in the DMR: <33% (hypomethylation), 33-66% (median methylation), and >66% methylation (hypermethylation).
2 N’s do not sum to total due to missing data.
Average methylation at imprinted genes in five samples with paired normal adjacent tissue
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | |||||
| | | | | | |
| 48% | 48% | 61% | 49% | 50% | |
| 13% | 8% | 63% | 14% | 26% | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 36% | 36% | 44% | 34% | 36% | |
| 10% | 6% | 39% | 10% | 26% | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 54% | 53% | 68% | 31% | 63% | |
| 12% | 33% | 26% | 9% | 55% | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 56% | 54% | 78% | 53% | 63% | |
| 11% | 97% | 24% | 10% | 11% | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 41% | 37% | 55% | NA2 | 21% | |
| 10% | 81% | 19% | 40% | 2% | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| 34% | 39% | 54% | NA2 | 37% | |
| 9% | 86% | 88% | 40% | NA2 |
1Average percent methylation across all CpG loci analyzed in the DMR.
2NA: Sample failed to amplify.