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
DiscussionClinical impact of molecular biologyEarly tumor markersDNA promoter hypermethylation has been shown to occur early in the colorectaltumorigenesis[163], making it possible to detect pre-neoplastic lesions. In contrast to genemutation analyses where multiple tests are required in order to correctly establish themutation status of the gene in question, promoter hypermethylation requires only one assayper gene, reducing the workload (the principle is illustrated Figure 14). APC and TP53 areexamples of genes in which several exons must be analyzed, while BRAF and KRAS havemutation hot-spots and require only one analysis. These four genes in addition to BAT26, amarker for microsatellite instability, are included in one of the few currently commerciallyavailable mutation tests for colorectal cancer. The sensitivity of this and comparable testshave been shown to fall within 52%-91% (reviewed in [164]). When combined with digitalmelting curves (a method which improves the level of mutation detection to 0.1%, far betterthan many conventional assays[165]) and/or DNA integrity assay (measures long DNAstretches, more abundant in patients with a tumor[166]), the overall sensitivity has beenshown to be around 90% in stool samples from CRC patients with known mutations[165].As mutations are highly tumor-specific, the specificity of mutation based test are superior toe.g. the detection of occult blood in stool samples.Expression of cancer-specific mRNA transcripts in colonocytes extracted from feces hasalso a been explored as a potential method for diagnostic tests[167]. When analyzing a panelof four genes (MMP7, MYBL2, PTGS2 and TP53) in fecal samples, the resulting sensitivityand the specificity were 58% and 88%, respectively. A challenge using this method is thatRNA is easily degraded in feces, and only intact colonocytes will provide suitable mRNA forfurther analyses. In the cited article, a success rate of 75% was obtained[167], a numberinferior to e.g. analyses of methylated promoters in stool.So far, only a handful of epigenetic markers with diagnostic potential have beenidentified[168-170]. Among the most promising ones is VIM, which is present in 73% offecal samples from individuals with CRC. When combined with a DNA integrity assay VIMhypermethylation provides a sensitivity and specificity in stool of 88% and 82%,54
Discussionrespectively[169;171]. Several studies have examined the diagnostic potential of SFRP2hypermethylation in stool, and report a sensitivity of 77-90% for carcinomas, 46-62% foradenomas and 33-42% for HPs. Specificity is within the range of 77% to 85% [168;172-174].Figure 14. Differences between methylation and mutations tests from a screening perspective. Abouthalf the human genes have a CpG-island in its 5’ position. Hypermethylation in this region is associated withreduced protein expression, an attribute often exploited by tumor cells. While mutation detection often requiresthat several exons are examined, and in case of large exons it may require several amplicons, methylation testonly need to check the promoter for cancer-specific hypermethylation.Several DNA methylation markers have also been analyzed in blood samples. This type ofstarting material is expected to increase patient compliance compared with the alternativenon-invasive test, fecal testing. However, with the exception of SEPT9, the sensitivity ofsuch markers have generally been low (range 17%-70%)[175-177]. Hypermethylation ofSEPT9 has a sensitivity of 58% and a very high specificity of 90%. By combining the resultsfrom two analyses of the same sample; one in normal DNA concentrations and the other ina diluted sample, the sensitivity increased to 72% while the specificity was kept[178]. Adrawback with the use of blood plasma as test material is that theoretically, cancer-specificDNA markers are not expected to be shed off the tumor and into the bloodstream in stage Iand II patients, who have localized tumors. Still, SEPT9 methylation has been found also inthe bloodstream of patients with large polyps, although with a severely reduced sensitivity(20%). The low success rate in picking up precursor lesions reduces the diagnostic value ofanalyzing SEPT9 in blood as people have to develop cancer in order to be test positive.Another obstacle when analyzing blood samples is the risk of detecting malignancies ordiseases in other organs than the large bowel. If the biomarker is not specific enough forcolorectal tumors one might end up in a situation in which the patient has a positive findingon a cancer test but no clinically detectable cancer when using colonoscopy. For this purpose55
- Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
- Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe present work ha
- Page 7 and 8: Prefacetechnology[3]. This new tech
- Page 10 and 11: SummaryThe subgroup of carcinomas w
- Page 12 and 13: Introduction“Epigenetic inheritan
- Page 14 and 15: Introductionamino acid change it is
- Page 16 and 17: Introductionmethylation during embr
- Page 18 and 19: IntroductionDNA is most of the time
- Page 20 and 21: IntroductionFigure 5. DNA methylati
- Page 22 and 23: IntroductionFigure 6. Incidence rat
- Page 24 and 25: IntroductionFigure 8. Tumor staging
- Page 26 and 27: Introductioninasmuch as 80% of colo
- Page 28 and 29: IntroductionInstabilities involved
- Page 30 and 31: Introductionthere seems to be a fid
- Page 32 and 33: Introductionsevere alterations are
- Page 34 and 35: Introductionpopulation-wide screeni
- Page 36 and 37: IntroductionFigure 12. Present and
- Page 38 and 39: RESULTS IN BRIEFPaper Ia. “DNA hy
- Page 40 and 41: Results in Briefinstability, and se
- Page 42 and 43: Results in BriefUnivariate survival
- Page 44 and 45: Discussionseveral factors, and full
- Page 46 and 47: Discussionlow threshold, we increas
- Page 48 and 49: DiscussionIt may seem like unnecess
- Page 50 and 51: Discussionthan 96% DHPLC do not sta
- Page 52 and 53: DiscussionFigure 13. Mutation detec
- Page 56 and 57: Discussionmarkers with a very high
- Page 58 and 59: Discussionchromosomes in metaphase[
- Page 60 and 61: DiscussionThese examples underline
- Page 62 and 63: Discussiongenes. One is based on mu
- Page 64 and 65: CONCLUSIONSWe have identified novel
- Page 66 and 67: Future PerspectivesMolecular risk a
- Page 68 and 69: REFERENCES1. Breasted J (1930) The
- Page 70 and 71: References29. Deng G, Chen A, Pong
- Page 72 and 73: References57. Al-Sukhni W, Aronson
- Page 74 and 75: References84. Kunkel TA (1993) Nucl
- Page 76 and 77: ReferencesLeggett B, Levine J, Kim
- Page 78 and 79: References133. Lind GE, Thorstensen
- Page 80 and 81: References156. Meling GI, Lothe RA,
- Page 82 and 83: ReferencesT, Song X, Day RH, Sledzi
- Page 84 and 85: References196. Honda S, Haruta M, S
- Page 86 and 87: ORIGINAL ARTICLESAPPENDIXAppendix I
- Page 89 and 90: GASTROENTEROLOGY 2007;132:1631-1639
- Page 91: Paper IbGuro E Lind, Terje Ahlquist
- Page 94 and 95: Journal of Translational Medicine 2
- Page 96 and 97: Journal of Translational Medicine 2
- Page 98 and 99: Journal of Translational Medicine 2
- Page 100 and 101: Journal of Translational Medicine 2
- Page 102 and 103: Journal of Translational Medicine 2
DiscussionCl<strong>in</strong>ical impact of molecular biologyEarly tumor markersDNA promoter hypermethylation has been shown to occur early <strong>in</strong> the colorectaltumorigenesis[163], mak<strong>in</strong>g it possible to detect pre-neoplastic lesions. In contrast to genemutation analyses where multiple tests are required <strong>in</strong> order to correctly establish themutation status of the gene <strong>in</strong> question, promoter hypermethylation requires only one assayper gene, reduc<strong>in</strong>g the workload (the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is illustrated Figure 14). APC <strong>and</strong> TP53 areexamples of genes <strong>in</strong> which several exons must be analyzed, while BRAF <strong>and</strong> KRAS havemutation hot-spots <strong>and</strong> require only one analysis. These four genes <strong>in</strong> addition to BAT26, amarker for microsatellite <strong>in</strong>stability, are <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> one of the few currently commerciallyavailable mutation tests for colorectal cancer. The sensitivity of this <strong>and</strong> comparable testshave been shown to fall with<strong>in</strong> 52%-91% (reviewed <strong>in</strong> [164]). When comb<strong>in</strong>ed with digitalmelt<strong>in</strong>g curves (a method which improves the level of mutation detection to 0.1%, far betterthan many conventional assays[165]) <strong>and</strong>/or DNA <strong>in</strong>tegrity assay (measures long DNAstretches, more abundant <strong>in</strong> patients with a tumor[166]), the overall sensitivity has beenshown to be around 90% <strong>in</strong> stool samples from CRC patients with k<strong>no</strong>wn mutations[165].As mutations are highly tumor-specific, the specificity of mutation based test are superior toe.g. the detection of occult blood <strong>in</strong> stool samples.Expression of cancer-specific mRNA transcripts <strong>in</strong> colo<strong>no</strong>cytes extracted from feces hasalso a been explored as a potential method for diag<strong>no</strong>stic tests[167]. When analyz<strong>in</strong>g a panelof four genes (MMP7, MYBL2, PTGS2 <strong>and</strong> TP53) <strong>in</strong> fecal samples, the result<strong>in</strong>g sensitivity<strong>and</strong> the specificity were 58% <strong>and</strong> 88%, respectively. A challenge us<strong>in</strong>g this method is thatRNA is easily degraded <strong>in</strong> feces, <strong>and</strong> only <strong>in</strong>tact colo<strong>no</strong>cytes will provide suitable mRNA forfurther analyses. In the cited article, a success rate of 75% was obta<strong>in</strong>ed[167], a number<strong>in</strong>ferior to e.g. analyses of methylated promoters <strong>in</strong> stool.So far, only a h<strong>and</strong>ful of epi<strong>genetic</strong> markers with diag<strong>no</strong>stic potential have beenidentified[168-170]. Among the most promis<strong>in</strong>g ones is VIM, which is present <strong>in</strong> 73% offecal samples from <strong>in</strong>dividuals with CRC. When comb<strong>in</strong>ed with a DNA <strong>in</strong>tegrity assay VIMhypermethylation provides a sensitivity <strong>and</strong> specificity <strong>in</strong> stool of 88% <strong>and</strong> 82%,54