| Literature DB >> 34930473 |
Chi T Viet1, Xinyu Zhang2,3, Ke Xu2,3, Gary Yu4, Kesava Asam5,6, Carissa M Thomas7, Nicholas F Callahan8, Coleen Doan9, Paul C Walker10, Khanh Nguyen10, Stephanie C Kidd10, Steve C Lee10, Anupama Grandhi9, Clint T Allen11, Simon Young12, James C Melville12, Jonathan W Shum12, Dan T Viet13, Alan S Herford9, Dylan F Roden14, Manuel L Gonzalez15, Jiang F Zhong16, Bradley E Aouizerat2,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has poor survival rates. There is a pressing need to develop more precise risk assessment methods to tailor clinical treatment. Epigenome-wide association studies in OSCC have not produced a viable biomarker. These studies have relied on methylation array platforms, which are limited in their ability to profile the methylome. In this study, we use MethylCap-Seq (MC-Seq), a comprehensive methylation quantification technique, and brush swab samples, to develop a noninvasive, readily translatable approach to profile the methylome in OSCC patients.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Brush biopsy; Brush swab; Epigenetic biomarker; Head and neck cancer; MethylCap-Seq; Methylation array; Methylation biomarker; Oral cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 34930473 PMCID: PMC8686381 DOI: 10.1186/s40364-021-00349-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomark Res ISSN: 2050-7771
Patient demographic characteristics
| Patient | Age | Sex | Race | Tobacco use, pack years | Alcohol, drinks/wk | Site | TNM | Stage | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68 | F | White | Never | Never | Tongue | T1N0M0 | I | Moderate | |
| 68 | M | White | Former, 53 | Former, 24 | Tongue | T4aN0M0 | IV | Moderate | |
| 49 | M | White | Current, 72 | Current, 14 | Mandible | T4bN3bM0 | IV | Moderate |
Characteristics of genomic DNA used as input for sequencing of tissue and brush swab biopsies
| Sample | DNA concentration ng/μl | A260 | A280 | 260/280 | 260/230 | gDNA input, ng |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1C swab | 3.96 | 0.01 | −0.004 | −2.99 | −0.18 | 118.8 |
| 1C tissue | 22.00 | 4.45 | 2.210 | 2.01 | 2.18 | 660.0 |
| 1 N swab | 1.70 | −0.05 | −0.048 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 51.0 |
| 1 N tissue | 6.24 | 0.44 | 0.220 | 2.01 | 2.75 | 187.2 |
| 2C swab | 4.24 | 0.01 | −0.027 | −0.27 | −0.09 | 127.2 |
| 2C tissue | 11.40 | 1.00 | 0.463 | 2.16 | 2.85 | 342.0 |
| 2 N swab | 6.32 | 0.07 | 0.014 | 5.14 | −1.45 | 189.6 |
| 2 N tissue | 8.00 | 0.62 | 0.290 | 2.12 | 3.04 | 240.0 |
| 3C swab | 66.60 | 1.82 | 0.971 | 1.87 | 2.86 | 1998.0 |
| 3C tissue | 21.80 | 2.16 | 1.314 | 1.65 | 0.80 | 654.0 |
| 3 N swab | 23.60 | 0.45 | 0.217 | 2.06 | 4.70 | 708.0 |
| 3 N tissue | 8.48 | 0.39 | 0.191 | 2.05 | 5.66 | 254.4 |
MC-Seq mapping efficiency among tissue and brush swab samples
| Name | Mapping efficiency (%) | Difference between swab and tissue (%) | Sequence pairs analyzed in total | Number of paired-end alignments with a unique best hit | Duplicate (%) | Sequence pairs after removing duplicate | Total number of C | Total methylated C’s in CpG context | Total methylated C’s in CHG context | Total methylated C’s in CHH context | CpG with depth coverage > 10x |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1C swab | 90.7 | 0.1 | 42,303,352 | 38,369,629 | 52.22 | 18,333,433 | 749,965,581 | 37,720,278 | 2,408,697 | 5,995,678 | 2,738,093 |
| 1C tissue | 90.6 | 34,732,207 | 31,480,976 | 28.42 | 22,534,549 | 927,088,792 | 44,803,115 | 2,908,059 | 7,258,418 | 2,892,873 | |
| 1 N swab | 89.3 | −0.7 | 35,997,131 | 32,160,165 | 69.49 | 9,811,824 | 392,619,063 | 19,593,941 | 1,231,170 | 3,078,167 | 1,827,202 |
| 1 N tissue | 90.4 | 38,013,580 | 34,357,686 | 50.99 | 16,840,023 | 701,455,939 | 36,205,354 | 2,320,490 | 5,789,438 | 2,671,771 | |
| 2C swab | 91.0 | 1.7 | 49,206,194 | 44,795,293 | 54.25 | 20,495,859 | 825,691,357 | 41,320,643 | 2,723,999 | 6,792,423 | 2,826,344 |
| 2C tissue | 89.3 | 48,990,997 | 43,728,505 | 39.71 | 26,364,632 | 1,095,985,402 | 53,089,834 | 3,494,884 | 8,728,001 | 3,092,966 | |
| 2 N swab | 86.7 | −1.9 | 40,037,338 | 34,712,643 | 48.22 | 17,975,067 | 745,570,397 | 35,629,449 | 2,300,915 | 5,877,073 | 2,662,761 |
| 2 N tissue | 88.6 | 37,524,719 | 33,261,053 | 48.50 | 17,128,931 | 713,630,671 | 35,589,419 | 2,277,861 | 5,673,182 | 2,685,042 | |
| 3C swab | 90.7 | −0.8 | 36,703,056 | 33,280,675 | 26.89 | 24,331,566 | 1,000,848,080 | 50,517,501 | 3,160,407 | 7,841,535 | 3,017,937 |
| 3C tissue | 91.5 | 39,728,186 | 36,357,410 | 28.90 | 25,848,885 | 1,069,409,107 | 52,603,435 | 3,264,928 | 8,042,519 | 3,100,471 | |
| 3 N swab | 88.3 | −1.8 | 52,334,030 | 46,226,126 | 34.76 | 30,156,313 | 1,221,133,676 | 62,639,138 | 3,840,377 | 9,388,785 | 3,227,707 |
| 3 N tissue | 90.1 | 41,553,671 | 37,445,490 | 39.68 | 22,588,890 | 950,370,928 | 50,055,981 | 3,072,187 | 7,486,332 | 2,982,445 | |
| Average swab | 89.45 | −0.567 | 42,763,517 | 38,257,422 | 48.00 | 20,184,010 | 822,638,026 | 41,236,825 | 2,610,928 | 6,495,610 | 2,716,674 |
| Average tissue | 90.00 | 40,090,560 | 36,105,187 | 39.00 | 21,884,318 | 909,656,807 | 45,391,190 | 2,889,735 | 7,162,982 | 2,904,261 |
Fig. 1(A) We compared depth of coverage in all CpGs and determined an inflection point at 10x coverage. (B) Using 10x read depth as a cutoff, we determined the number of quantified CpG sites in each sample. Average number of quantified CpGs meeting our criteria was 2,716,674 for swab samples and 2,904,261 for tissue samples, with no significant difference between the two sample types. (C) The average mapping efficiency was 89.45% for brush swabs and 90% for tissues, with no significant difference between the two sampling methods. (D) The pie charts detail the relative genic locations of the CpGs profiled by MC-Seq (left) and CpGs covered by the EPIC array that were profiled (right). MC-Seq provided more robust coverage of functional gene regions than the EPIC array
Fig. 2The scatterplots demonstrate the correlation between tissue and brush swab biopsies for (A) cancer and (B) normal sites of the 3 patients. The correlation values are noted. (C) By focusing on the top 1000 most variable methylation features between cancer and normal samples quantified with MC-Seq, we determined the methylation difference between different sample types, visualized using box plots (median, quartiles, maximum and minimum whiskers). The p-values for each test of difference in CpG methylation by t-test were expressed as -log10(p-value), which had a median of 3.67 (i.e., p = 0.00021) between cancer vs. normal. The same CpG sites were not differentially methylated [average -log10(p-value) = 0.96 (i.e., p = 0.11)] between tissue vs. brush swabs, suggesting that brush swabs are a viable surrogate of tissue biopsy