11.07.2015 Views

Novel genetic and epigenetic alterations in ... - Ous-research.no

Novel genetic and epigenetic alterations in ... - Ous-research.no

Novel genetic and epigenetic alterations in ... - Ous-research.no

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

DiscussionS<strong>in</strong>ce MSP only gives <strong>in</strong>formation on the methylation status of the gene <strong>in</strong> question based onthe CpG-sites covered by the primers, it is important that these specific sites arerepresentative for the gene promoter. In cases where you are look<strong>in</strong>g for promotermethylation that affects the gene transcription, CpG sites <strong>in</strong> the close proximity to thetranscription start po<strong>in</strong>t will usually be most suitable. Hypermethylation of such promoterregions have <strong>in</strong> general shown a strong association with loss of or reduced gene expression.In contrast, hypermethylation with<strong>in</strong> the body of the gene may be associated with an activetranscriptional state[142]. In the case of MLH1 only a few bases are correlated withtranscriptional repression, while the other CpG sites play a marg<strong>in</strong>al role[143]. Even thougha similar result was seen for the MAL gene (see bislufite sequenc<strong>in</strong>g page 46), both casesrepresent exceptions to the general l<strong>in</strong>k between promoter methylation <strong>and</strong> transcription. Atthe same time they underl<strong>in</strong>e the importance of good study design <strong>and</strong> careful technicalvalidation.Scor<strong>in</strong>g of MSP resultsThe MSP products were separated with agarose gel electrophoresis, sta<strong>in</strong>ed with ethidiumbromide <strong>and</strong> visualized with UV. Samples with equal or stronger b<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity than thepositive control <strong>in</strong> the methylation specific reaction were de<strong>no</strong>ted strongly methylated (++),while samples with less <strong>in</strong>tense b<strong>and</strong>s than the positive control were categorized as weaklymethylated. Samples with very weak b<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>and</strong> those with <strong>no</strong> visible PCR product <strong>in</strong>the methylation-specific reaction were regarded as unmethylated. We considered carc<strong>in</strong>omaswith strong b<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tensities (++) as methylation positive for the gene promoter <strong>in</strong> question,while the benign lesions <strong>and</strong> <strong>no</strong>rmal mucosa are scored as positive also when weaklymethylated (+ <strong>and</strong> ++). The rationale for this is based on the clonal expansion theory (page12). In a carc<strong>in</strong>oma, tumorigenic <strong>alterations</strong> have already accumulated. Hence, only genesmethylated <strong>in</strong> the majority of tumor cells (++) would be functionally/biologically <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g.In contrast, benign precursors may need additional <strong>alterations</strong> <strong>and</strong>/or time <strong>in</strong> order todevelop a malignant potential. Therefore, methylation changes present only <strong>in</strong> a smallfraction of the ade<strong>no</strong>ma cells may provide these cells with a future growth advantage lead<strong>in</strong>gto a selection <strong>and</strong> clonal expansion. By scor<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>no</strong>rmal samples <strong>and</strong> early lesions with a45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!