Christophe Van Neste1,2, Alexander Laird3,4,5, Fiach O'Mahony3,4, Wim Van Criekinge6, Dieter Deforce1, Filip Van Nieuwerburgh1, Thomas Powles7,8, David J Harrison9,10,11, Grant D Stewart3,4, Tim De Meyer6. 1. Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Center for Medical Genetics, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. 4. Scottish Collaboration On Translational Research into Renal Cell Cancer (SCOTRRCC), Edinburgh, UK. 5. MRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. 6. Biobix: Laboratory of Bioinformatics and Computational Genomics, Department of Mathematical Modeling, Statistics and Bioninformatics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 7. Renal Cancer Unit, The Royal Free Hospital, London, NW3 2QG, UK. 8. Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Bart's Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1A 7BE, UK. 9. Edinburgh Urological Cancer Group, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. david.harrison@st-andrews.ac.uk. 10. Scottish Collaboration On Translational Research into Renal Cell Cancer (SCOTRRCC), Edinburgh, UK. david.harrison@st-andrews.ac.uk. 11. School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, Edinburgh, St Andrews, KY16 9TF, UK. david.harrison@st-andrews.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, it is unclear to what extent sampling procedures affect the epigenome. Here, this phenomenon was evaluated by studying the impact of artery ligation on DNA methylation in clear cell renal cancer. METHODS: DNA methylation profiles between vascularised tumour biopsy samples and devascularised nephrectomy samples from two individuals were compared. The relevance of significantly altered methylation profiles was validated in an independent clinical trial cohort. RESULTS: We found that six genes were differentially methylated in the test samples, of which four were linked to ischaemia or hypoxia (REXO1L1, TLR4, hsa-mir-1299, ANKRD2). Three of these genes were also found to be significantly differentially methylated in the validation cohort, indicating that the observed effects are genuine. CONCLUSION: Tissue ischaemia during normal surgical removal of tumour can cause epigenetic changes. Based on these results, we conclude that the impact of sampling procedures in clinical epigenetic studies should be considered and discussed, particularly after inducing hypoxia/ischaemia, which occurs in most oncological surgery procedures through which tissues are collected for translational research.
PURPOSE: Currently, it is unclear to what extent sampling procedures affect the epigenome. Here, this phenomenon was evaluated by studying the impact of artery ligation on DNA methylation in clear cell renal cancer. METHODS: DNA methylation profiles between vascularised tumour biopsy samples and devascularised nephrectomy samples from two individuals were compared. The relevance of significantly altered methylation profiles was validated in an independent clinical trial cohort. RESULTS: We found that six genes were differentially methylated in the test samples, of which four were linked to ischaemia or hypoxia (REXO1L1, TLR4, hsa-mir-1299, ANKRD2). Three of these genes were also found to be significantly differentially methylated in the validation cohort, indicating that the observed effects are genuine. CONCLUSION: Tissue ischaemia during normal surgical removal of tumour can cause epigenetic changes. Based on these results, we conclude that the impact of sampling procedures in clinical epigenetic studies should be considered and discussed, particularly after inducing hypoxia/ischaemia, which occurs in most oncological surgery procedures through which tissues are collected for translational research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer epigenetics; DNA methylation; Hypoxia; Sampling effects
Authors: A E Greijer; P van der Groep; D Kemming; A Shvarts; G L Semenza; G A Meijer; M A van de Wiel; J A M Belien; P J van Diest; E van der Wall Journal: J Pathol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Grant D Stewart; Fiach C O'Mahony; Alexander Laird; Lel Eory; Alexander L R Lubbock; Alan Mackay; Jyoti Nanda; Marie O'Donnell; Peter Mullen; S Alan McNeill; Antony C P Riddick; Daniel Berney; Axel Bex; Michael Aitchison; Ian M Overton; David J Harrison; Thomas Powles Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nick W Liu; Thomas Sanford; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Jack L Liu; Kiranpreet Khurana; Olga Aprelikova; Vladimir Valero; Charles Bechert; Robert Worrell; Peter A Pinto; Youfeng Yang; Maria Merino; W Marston Linehan; Gennady Bratslavsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kevin Sharpe; Grant D Stewart; Alan Mackay; Christophe Van Neste; Charlotte Rofe; Dan Berney; Irfan Kayani; Axel Bex; Elaine Wan; Fiach C O'Mahony; Marie O'Donnell; Simon Chowdhury; Rukma Doshi; Colan Ho-Yen; Marco Gerlinger; Dawn Baker; Neil Smith; Barry Davies; Anju Sahdev; Ekaterini Boleti; Tim De Meyer; Wim Van Criekinge; Luis Beltran; Yong-Jie Lu; David J Harrison; Andrew R Reynolds; Tom Powles Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hyun Ji Kim; Boram Kim; Hyung Jung Byun; Lu Yu; Tuan Minh Nguyen; Thi Ha Nguyen; Phuong Anh Do; Eun Ji Kim; Kyung Ah Cheong; Kyung Sung Kim; Hiệu Huy Phùng; Mostafizur Rahman; Ji Yun Jang; Seung Bae Rho; Gyeoung Jin Kang; Mi Kyung Park; Ho Lee; Kyeong Lee; Jungsook Cho; Hyo Kyung Han; Sang Geon Kim; Ai Young Lee; Chang Hoon Lee Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) Date: 2021-11-30