| Literature DB >> 28903739 |
Panagiotis Georgiadis1, Irene Liampa1, Dennie G Hebels2, Julian Krauskopf2, Aristotelis Chatziioannou1, Ioannis Valavanis1, Theo M C M de Kok2, Jos C S Kleinjans2, Ingvar A Bergdahl3, Beatrice Melin4, Florentin Spaeth4, Domenico Palli5, R C H Vermeulen6, J Vlaanderen6, Marc Chadeau-Hyam7, Paolo Vineis7, Soterios A Kyrtopoulos8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common type of adult leukemia. It often follows an indolent course and is preceded by monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, an asymptomatic condition, however it is not known what causes subjects with this condition to progress to CLL. Hence the discovery of prediagnostic markers has the potential to improve the identification of subjects likely to develop CLL and may also provide insights into the pathogenesis of the disease of potential clinical relevance.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers of risk; Epigenomics; Molecular epidemiology; Prospective cohort; Transcriptomics; miRNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28903739 PMCID: PMC5598006 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-4117-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Demographic characteristics of the study population. DNA methylation profiles were available for all subjects, while gene and miRNA expression profiles were available as indicated in the Table
| Total | Cases | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total (N) | 347 | 28 | 319 |
| EPIC Italy; | 133 | 9 | 124 |
| NSHDS; | 214 | 19 | 195 |
| Males; | 135 | 18 | 117 |
| Females; | 212 | 10 | 202 |
| Age; mean (SD) | 52.3 (7.7) | 52.0 (8.1) | 52.3 (7.7) |
| BMI; mean (SD) | 26 (4.1) | 25.6 (3.3) | 26.0 (4.1) |
| Smokers (%) | 72 (2.1%) | 2 (7.1%) | 70 (2.2%) |
| Subjects with transcriptomic profile ( | 307 | 25 | 282 |
| Subjects with miRNA expression profile ( | 111 | 11 | 100 |
Fig. 1Flowchart of data analyses
Top 20 CLL risk-related DM CpG sites; based on comparison of all cases vs controls with <10% B-cells, with adjustment for WBC composition
| CpG site | Gene symbol | Raw | FDR BH | LSM β, controls (%) | LSM β, cases (%) | Δβ = cases-controls (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cg05677184 | <1E-99 | 1.11E-18 | 83.2 | 76.08 | −7.12 | |
| cg10318725 | RASA3 | <1E-99 | 3.10E-17 | 87.09 | 79.18 | −7.92 |
| cg04308797 | SEC14L1 | <1E-99 | 2.10E-16 | 86.78 | 66.71 | −20.07 |
| cg20649847 | ANKRD13B | <1E-99 | 4.86E-15 | 88.38 | 57.93 | −30.45 |
| cg04099036 | TBCD | <1E-99 | 8.64E-15 | 87.7 | 74.77 | −12.93 |
| cg25212453 | SLC43A2 | <1E-99 | 8.64E-15 | 0.7 | 1.52 | −10.46 |
| cg15909319 | 1.06E-19 | 8.64E-15 | 87.88 | 77.42 | 0.82 | |
| cg09640070 | ITPR2 | <1E-99 | 8.33E-14 | 83.63 | 76.69 | −6.94 |
| cg19172447 | EP400 | <1E-99 | 8.33E-14 | 88.63 | 78.61 | −10.01 |
| cg06475633 | P2RX1 | <1E-99 | 3.60E-13 | 97.09 | 92.59 | −4.51 |
| cg07508446 | <1E-99 | 4.83E-13 | 79.74 | 75.52 | −4.22 | |
| cg08461425 | KDM2B | <1E-99 | 6.63E-13 | 80.63 | 73.99 | −6.64 |
| cg05698911 | DUSP22 | <1E-99 | 1.74E-12 | 81.93 | 74.79 | −7.14 |
| cg19907483 | RFX2 | <1E-99 | 2.89E-12 | 90.14 | 83.67 | −6.46 |
| cg01595262 | 2.22E-16 | 4.10E-12 | 82.37 | 76.17 | −6.2 | |
| cg21394039 | ATP9B | 2.22E-16 | 4.10E-12 | 85.79 | 79.99 | −5.79 |
| cg01438467 | SLC43A2 | 2.22E-16 | 6.00E-12 | 89.59 | 83.93 | −5.66 |
| cg03777414 | TVP23A | 4.44E-16 | 9.68E-12 | 79.21 | 67.17 | −12.04 |
| cg14972228 | SIPA1L3 | 8.88E-16 | 1.57E-11 | 82.02 | 77.19 | −4.83 |
| cg26363196 | ST6GALNAC3 | 8.43E-16 | 1.76E-11 | 2.53 | 3.75 | 1.22 |
Fig. 2Top: PCA based on 1308 CpG sites significant (FDR < 0.05) in CLL cases and with minimal variation between WBC sub-populations. Bottom: similar analysis with 1308 CpG sites randomly selected from among those with FDR > 0.8 in CLL cases and with minimal variation between WBC sub-populations. The signal intensities employed were denoised for various parameters, including B-cell content (see Methods). The numbers in the Figures on the right indicate the fractional B-cell content of the samples. The Figures on the left show all subjects while those on the right show only the CLL case subjects
CLL risk-related DE signals, Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.05; based on comparison of all cases vs controls with <10% B-cells, with adjustment for WBC composition
| Probe ID | Gene symbol | Raw p-value | FDR BH | Fold changea |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A_23_P500400 | ABCA6 | 7.07E-31 | 4.04E-26 | −5.47 |
| A_23_P26854 | ARHGAP44 | 1.86E-20 | 4.65E-16 | −5.78 |
| A_32_P53234 | CEACAM21 | 3.48E-14 | 3.59E-10 | −2.02 |
| A_23_P130158 | WNT3 | 4.34E-11 | 4.24E-07 | −3.82 |
| A_23_P131024 | ZBTB32 | 3.76E-10 | 2.69E-06 | −2.43 |
| A_23_P27332 | TCF4 | 8.53E-10 | 4.41E-06 | −1.80 |
| A_24_P691826 | 1.55E-09 | 7.79E-06 | −2.33 | |
| A_23_P124335 | C1orf186 | 6.07E-09 | 2.16E-05 | −1.73 |
| A_24_P29733 | CDK14 | 6.29E-09 | 2.16E-05 | −1.75 |
| A_24_P306214 | TLDC1 | 2.49E-07 | 6.99E-04 | 1.50 |
| A_23_P85250 | CD24 | 5.14E-07 | 1.41E-03 | −1.60 |
| A_23_P23639 | MCOLN2 | 6.53E-07 | 1.63E-03 | −1.58 |
| A_23_P30693 | PLG | 9.27E-07 | 2.34E-03 | 2.39 |
| A_32_P108156 | MIR155HG | 1.08E-06 | 2.34E-03 | −1.86 |
| A_24_P149266 | PACSIN1 | 1.32E-06 | 2.34E-03 | 1.39 |
| A_24_P324838 | IGHD | 1.43E-06 | 2.86E-03 | 1.74 |
aPositive values refer to the ratio cases/controls and negative values the ratio controls/cases
Fig. 3Comparison of denoised case-control methylation differences (Δβ) (left) and expression differences (foldchange ratio) (right), obtained from the comparison of all cases with controls with <10% B-cells (vertical axes) or with all controls (horizontal axes). The light lines show slope = 1
Fig. 4Normalized least squares means (LSM) of DM and DE signal values in the controls and the two TtD groups. Top left: 238 DM signals Bonferroni-significant in the short TtD subgroup; bottom left: 291 DE signals FDR-significant in the short TtD subgroup. Top right: top 20 DM signals observed in all cases; bottom right: Bonferroni -significant DE signals observed in all cases. In the Figures on the right are named the genes associated with the 3 DM or DE signals with the largest changes in each direction (only 2 DM genes show increased methylation with decreasing TtD)
Fig. 5Interaction network of the DM + DE hubs (STRING)