| Literature DB >> 25625843 |
Anni Niskakoski1, Sippy Kaur, Synnöve Staff, Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo, Heini Lassus, Heikki J Järvinen, Jukka-Pekka Mecklin, Ralf Bützow, Päivi Peltomäki.
Abstract
Diagnosis and treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer is challenging due to the poor understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease. Our aim was to investigate epigenetic mechanisms in ovarian tumorigenesis and, especially, whether tumors with different histological subtypes or hereditary background (Lynch syndrome) exhibit differential susceptibility to epigenetic inactivation of growth regulatory genes. Gene candidates for epigenetic regulation were identified from the literature and by expression profiling of ovarian and endometrial cancer cell lines treated with demethylating agents. Thirteen genes were chosen for methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assays on 104 (85 sporadic and 19 Lynch syndrome-associated) ovarian carcinomas. Increased methylation (i.e., hypermethylation) of variable degree was characteristic of ovarian carcinomas relative to the corresponding normal tissues, and hypermethylation was consistently more prominent in non-serous than serous tumors for individual genes and gene sets investigated. Lynch syndrome-associated clear cell carcinomas showed the highest frequencies of hypermethylation. Among endometrioid ovarian carcinomas, lower levels of promoter methylation of RSK4, SPARC, and HOXA9 were significantly associated with higher tumor grade; thus, the methylation patterns showed a shift to the direction of high-grade serous tumors. In conclusion, we provide evidence of a frequent epigenetic inactivation of RSK4, SPARC, PROM1, HOXA10, HOXA9, WT1-AS, SFRP2, SFRP5, OPCML, and MIR34B in the development of non-serous ovarian carcinomas of Lynch and sporadic origin, as compared to serous tumors. Our findings shed light on the role of epigenetic mechanisms in ovarian tumorigenesis and identify potential targets for translational applications.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methylation; Dm, methylation dosage ratio; HOXA9; LS, Lynch syndrome; Lynch syndrome; MS-MLPA ovarian cancer; MS-MLPA, methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification; RSK4; SPARC; TSG, tumor suppressor gene; WT1, Wilms tumor suppressor 1 sense; WT1-AS, Wilms tumor suppressor 1 antisense; epigenetics; miRNAs, microRNAs
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25625843 PMCID: PMC4622692 DOI: 10.4161/15592294.2014.983374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epigenetics ISSN: 1559-2294 Impact factor: 4.528
Figure 1.Flowchart of this investigation.
Figure 2.Average Dm values from MS-MLPA analyses on non-serous and serous ovarian carcinomas and the corresponding normal tissue references. Asterisks denote significantly elevated methylation in tumor vs. normal tissue by t-test for independent samples. The average Dm values of tumor DNAs may in fact be somewhat higher than those shown if possible “contamination” with normal cells is taken into account (see Materials and Methods).
Hypermethylation frequencies in different patient groups
| | | Percentage of hypermethylated tumorsa | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor category | Number of tumors | MIR34B | let-7a-3 | |||||||||||
| (a) Lynch clear cell | 7 | 100 | 86 | 71 | 0 | 14 | 71 | 100 | 100 | 43 | 100 | 14 | 71 | 57 |
| (b) Lynch endometrioid | 12 | 83 | 75 | 33 | 8 | 0 | 67 | 92 | 92 | 25 | 83 | 8 | 42 | 33 |
| (c) Sporadic clear cell | 36 | 58 | 86 | 28 | 8 | 8 | 78 | 94 | 94 | 33 | 86 | 31 | 22 | 39 |
| (d) Sporadic endometrioid | 28 | 64 | 64 | 54 | 21 | 4 | 64 | 79 | 64 | 39 | 71 | 25 | 36 | 57 |
| (e) Sporadic serous | 20 | 65 | 15 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 35 | 30 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 5 | 35 |
| (f) Lynch non-serous ( = a + b) | 19 | 89 | 79 | 47 | 5 | 5 | 68 | 95 | 95 | 32 | 89 | 11 | 53 | 42 |
| (g) Sporadic non-serous ( = c + d) | 64 | 61 | 77 | 39 | 14 | 6 | 72 | 56 | 81 | 36 | 80 | 28 | 28 | 47 |
| I Sporadic versus hereditary | ||||||||||||||
| (a) vs. (c) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| (b) versus (d) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| (f) vs. (g) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| II Sporadic non-serous versus serous | ||||||||||||||
| (g) vs. (e) | ns | < 0.001 | ns | ns | ns | <0.05 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ns | <0.001 | ns | ns | ns | |
| III Sporadic and Lynch non-serous versus sporadic serous | ||||||||||||||
| (f + g) vs. (e) | ns | < 0.001 | ns | ns | ns | <0.05 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ns | <0.001 | ns | ns | ns | |
a Using cutoffs determined by methylation in the respective normal tissues (Suppl. Table 4.)
b Determined by Fisher exact test and corrected for multiple testing
ns = Nonsignificant
Clinicopathological data of sporadic and Lynch-associated ovarian carcinoma
| Sporadic | Lynch-associatedc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear cell | Endometrioida | Serous | Total | Clear cell | Endometrioid | Total | |
| No. of cases | 36 | 28 | 20 | 84 | 7 | 12 | 19 |
| Grade | |||||||
| G1 | NA | 11 | 0 | 11 | NA | 6 | 6 |
| G2 and G3 | NA | 17 | 20 | 37 | NA | 5 | 5 |
| Stage | |||||||
| I and II | 22 | 14 | 3 | 39 | 6 | 9 | 15 |
| III and IV | 14 | 14 | 17 | 45 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Overall MMR status | |||||||
| MMR deficient | 6 (17%) | 4 (14%) | 1 (5%) | 11 (13%) | 7 (100%) | 11 (92%) | 18 (95%) |
| MMR proficient | 30 (83%) | 24 (86%) | 19 (95%) | 73 (87%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 1 (5%) |
| Average no. of TSGs methylated out of 24b | 2.5 | 3.0 | 0.6 | 5.0 | 3.8 | ||
| Average no. of TSGs methylated out of 13c | 6.7 | 6.4 | 2.8 | 8.3 | 6.4 | ||
aOne of the Lynch endometrioid tumors is borderline tumor, which is not graded.
bNiskakoski et al.18
cThe predisposing mutation affected MLH1 in 15 and MSH2 in 4 cases (see Niskakoski et al.18 for details).
Figure 3.Distribution of methylation dosage ratios (Dm values) for RSK4, SPARC, and HOXA9 in endometrioid ovarian carcinomas (sporadic and Lynch-associated combined) stratified by grade (low refers to grade 1 and high to grades 2 and 3). The horizontal line denotes the median and each triangle represents the Dm value of individual data point. Significance values by t-test for independent samples are shown.
Figure 4.Correlation analysis of expression (Y-axis, RMA normalized values for protein coding genes and quantile normalized values for MIR34B from arrays) and methylation (X-axis, Dm values from MS-MLPA). The analysis includes cancer cell lines and normal tissue references for which high molecular weight DNA and RNA were available. Data points for normal tissues predominantly clustered in the left top quadrants, compatible with low methylation and high expression. Cancer cells with high degree of methylation often showed low expression (hence, were located in the right bottom quadrants), whereas cancer cells with low methylation showed high or low expression depending on the intrinsic properties of the genes and tissue types in question. While methylation for all these genes significantly correlated with transcriptional repression overall, subsets of specimens occasionally showed transcriptional regulation apparently unrelated to methylation (see, e.g., MIR34B).