Correlation of SHOX2 Gene Amplification and DNA Methylation in Lung Cancer Tumors
- Katja U Schneider†1,
- Dimo Dietrich†2Email author,
- Michael Fleischhacker3,
- Gunda Leschber4,
- Johannes Merk4,
- Frank Schäper4,
- Henk R Stapert5,
- Erik R Vossenaar5,
- Sabine Weickmann6,
- Volker Liebenberg7,
- Christoph Kneip8,
- Anke Seegebarth9,
- Fikret Erdogan10,
- Gudrun Rappold1 and
- Bernd Schmidt11
© Schneider et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 9 September 2010
Accepted: 22 March 2011
Published: 22 March 2011
DNA methylation in the SHOX2 locus was previously used to reliably detect lung cancer in a group of critical controls, including 'cytologically negative' samples with no visible tumor cell content, at a high specificity based on the analysis of bronchial lavage samples. This study aimed to investigate, if the methylation correlates with SHOX2 gene expression and/or copy number alterations. An amplification of the SHOX2 gene locus together with the observed tumor-specific hypermethylation might explain the good performance of this marker in bronchial lavage samples.
SHOX2 expression, gene copy number and DNA methylation were determined in lung tumor tissues and matched morphologically normal adjacent tissues (NAT) from 55 lung cancer patients. Quantitative HeavyMethyl (HM) real-time PCR was used to detect SHOX2 DNA methylation levels. SHOX2 expression was assayed with quantitative real-time PCR, and copy numbers alterations were measured with conventional real-time PCR and array CGH.
A hypermethylation of the SHOX2 locus in tumor tissue as compared to the matched NAT from the same patient was detected in 96% of tumors from a group of 55 lung cancer patients. This correlated highly significantly with the frequent occurrence of copy number amplification (p < 0.0001), while the expression of the SHOX2 gene showed no difference.
Frequent gene amplification correlated with hypermethylation of the SHOX2 gene locus. This concerted effect qualifies SHOX2 DNA methylation as a biomarker for lung cancer diagnosis, especially when sensitive detection is needed, i.e. in bronchial lavage or blood samples.
Lung cancer represents the second most common cancer in both men and women and accounts for about 15% of all cancer diagnoses . In the absence of screening, lung cancer patients either exhibit symptoms or are accidentally diagnosed by clinical imaging performed for other indications. Patients suspected of having malignant lung disease usually undergo clinical investigation (workup) including CT-scanning of the thorax and bronchoscopy. The latter is preferentially applied to confirm a lung neoplasm by pathological assessment of tissue or a cytological specimen obtained during the procedure. A final diagnosis after the first bronchoscopy fails in about half of these patients , which requires additional invasive diagnostic procedures. Even when signs, symptoms and radiological findings are such that the clinical diagnosis of malignant lung disease appears obvious, it often takes considerable effort and invasive procedures to obtain tissue material suitable for definitively confirming the presence of malignant disease.
Ambiguous results following bronchoscopy are frequent (i.e. the presence of a malignancy cannot be confirmed), e.g. because the tumor is not visible endoscopically and cells obtained by brushing or aspiration do not allow the pathologist to confirm or exclude malignancy.
Biomarkers exhibit great potential for improving the management of cancer in clinical routine. So far, several biomarkers from genetic, proteomic and epigenetic approaches are available for clinical research purposes [3–5]. The use of DNA methylation as a biomarker is an emerging field that provides potential for advancing the clinical process of cancer diagnosis [6–10]. Methylation of DNA is an important epigenetic process involved in fundamental biological events such as development and cell differentiation [for review: ]. Aberrant DNA methylation has been reported to play a major role in carcinogenesis [for review: ], suggesting that DNA methylation analysis may be a valuable source for cancer biomarkers . Recently, SHOX2 DNA methylation was shown to be a useful biomarker for detecting cancer patients at high specificity and sensitivity in a group of critical controls based on the analysis of bronchial lavage samples . Interestingly, samples that were classified as 'cytologically negative' or 'inconclusive' due to no (or too few) visible tumor cell content could be identified as cancer-positive, based on their SHOX2 DNA methylation level.
SHOX2 has been identified as highly homologous to the short stature homeobox gene SHOX. Both homeodomain-transcription factors are involved in skeletogenesis, and the murine Shox2 gene has been shown to play a pivotal role during heart development [15–18].
Genomic gain of chromosome 3q involving the SHOX2 gene has been recognized as one of the most prevalent and significant chromosomal rearrangements in lung cancer [19–23]. The positive performance of SHOX2 DNA methylation as a biomarker in cytologically negative bronchial lavage samples might be due to the concerted effects of locus amplification and DNA methylation of SHOX2 in tumor cells. As a result, an increase of SHOX2 DNA copies in tumor cells compared to normal cells also increases the SHOX2 DNA methylation level in a mixed sample of tumor and normal cells as compared to the methylation level of normal cells alone. In this study the DNA methylation, gene expression and gene amplification of SHOX2 in matched tumor and normal adjacent tissues (NAT) from 55 lung cancer patients were investigated.
The study was comprised of matched morphologically normal lung tissues and tumor tissues from 55 lung cancer patients who underwent surgery. Surgical samples were obtained from the ELK Berlin Chest Hospital (Berlin, Germany). Histological data (histological subtype and grade) can be found in Additional File 1. Appropriate consent in line with institutional requirements was obtained from all patients. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committees. All samples were fixed with RNAlater and stored immediately at -80°C.
RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer's instructions. DNA contamination was eliminated by employing the RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). And RNA was reversely transcribed into cDNA using the Superscript First Strand Synthesis System for RT-PCR (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Nucleotide contents were measured on a Nanodrop® ND-1000 spectral photometer (Nanodrop Technologies, DE, USA).
Washed research sperm (NW Andrology & Cryobank Inc., Spokane, WA, USA) was lysed as previously described . Tumor tissues were lysed by adding 100 μl lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 8.4, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% [v/v] Tween®20) and proteinase K (20 mg/ml, Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) and incubated for 8 h at 60°C and 1000 rpm in a thermomixer. Another 10 μl proteinase K was added and the samples were incubated for another 4 h. Eighty μl of the lysate was subjected to the bisulfite conversion reaction as described below. Genomic DNA from the lysate was extracted as follows: Twenty μl tumor tissue lysate was mixed with 180 μl water, 250 μl binding buffer (6 M guanidiniumthiocyanate, 0.1 M Tris; pH 7.5) and 250 μl ethanol (molecular biology grade, ≥ 99,8%). The mixture was transferred onto a NucleoSpin Extract II Column (Macherey & Nagel, Dueren, Germany) and was centrifuged at 14,000 × g for 3 min, and the flow-through was discarded. The immobilized DNA was washed with 700 μl wash buffer (150 mM Tris pH 7.4, 85% ethanol) followed by three rounds of centrifugation (14,000 × g, 1 min). The spin column was incubated for 10 min at 60°C with open lids in a thermomixer in order to evaporate residual ethanol. Forty μl water was added to the centre of the membrane and incubated for 1 min. The DNA was eluted by centrifugation for 1 min at 14,000 × g.
DNA concentration was quantified using a Nanodrop® ND-1000 spectral photometer (Nanodrop Technologies, DE, USA).
Lysates from tumor tissues, universally methylated DNA (CpGenome™ Universal Methylated DNA, Millipore, MA, USA), and extracted DNA from sperm were filled up with lysis buffer to a final volume of 80 μl and treated as follows: Eighty μl bisulfite reagent (65% ABS, pH 5.3 [TIB Chemicals, Mannheim, Germany]) and 40 μl denaturation reagent (0.07 g/ml Trolox [Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO] in THFA [VWR International, Darmstadt, Germany]) were added and the mixture was incubated for 45 min at 85°C and 1,000 rpm in a thermomixer. Two hundred and fifty μl ethanol and 250 μl binding buffer were added and the bisulfite converted DNA was extracted as described above with the following modification: washing was carried out with 700 μl desulphonation buffer (250 mM NaOH, 75% ethanol) after the first washing step.
DNA concentration was quantified via UV spectrophotometry as described above.
Bisulfite converted sperm DNA (known to be unmethylated at many loci ) and converted universally methylated DNA were mixed to produce samples with a defined percentage of methylation.
SHOX2 DNA Methylation Real-time PCR Assays
Relative DNA methylation of the SHOX2 locus compared to total DNA (determined via ACTB reference in a duplex PCR reaction) was quantified using the Epi proLung BL real-time PCR kit (Epigenomics AG, Berlin, Germany) following the instructions for use, but only 0.25 μl DNA were subjected to PCR.
Relative DNA methylation of the SHOX2 locus referred to total DNA as determined with a methylation-unspecific SHOX2 assay was analyzed in 20 μl duplex PCR reaction with the following composition: Thirty-five mM Tris, pH 8.4, 6 mM MgCl2, 50 mM KCl, 5% glycerol, 0.25 mM each dNTP, 3 U FastStart Taq DNA polymerase [GMP grade, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany], primers (0.3 μM 5'-ggttttgagtaattaatagaaat-3', 0.3 μM 5'-ctctttctattctctcttc-3', 0.8 μM 5'-gttttttggatagttaggtaat-3', 0.8 μM 5'-cctcctaccttctaaccc-3'), 1.5 μM each blocker (5'-taatttttgttttgtttgtttgattggggttgtatga-SpacerC3-3', 5'-acccaacttaaacaacaaacccttta-SpacerC3-3'), 0.6 μM each detection probe (5'-6-R6G-tgaatttgttgatttttgtgggt-BHQ1-3', 5'-6-FAM-ctcgtacgaccccgatcg-BBQ-650-3') and 20 ng DNA (according to UV quantitation). The same PCR cycling was used as described in the instructions for use of the Epi proLung BL real-time PCR kit.
For each sample and each of the two assays as described above, the relative methylation values were determined using the ΔΔCT method [26, 27]. Bisulfite converted universally methylated DNA (as described above) was used as reference DNA to transform ΔCT into ΔΔCT. Therefore, a ΔΔCTSample = 0 refers to 100% methylated DNA.
SHOX2 Copy Number Real-time PCR Assay
The methylation-unspecific quantification of the total amount of bisulfite converted SHOX2 copies was performed in 20 μl PCR reaction with the following composition: Tris, pH, MgCl2, KCl, glycerol, dNTPs, FastStart Taq DNA polymerase as described above, 0.75 μM each primer (forward: 5'-ggttttgagtaattaatagaaat-3', reverse: 5'-ctctttctattctctcttc-3'), 0.3 μM detection probe (5'-6-FAM-tgaatttgttgatttttgtgggt-BHQ1-3') and 20 ng DNA (according to UV quantitation). Ten ng of bisulfite converted DNAs (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% methylated) were used as standards to convert the CT of a given sample into ng of DNA. Each methylation mixture and each sample were measured in triplicates and the mean was calculated.
PCR was performed using a 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR machine (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA) using the following temperature profile: 15 min at 95°C of initial denaturation followed by 45 cycles with 15s, 95°C and 30s, 58°C.
SHOX2 qRT PCR Assay
qPCR was carried out in 20 μl reaction with the composition as described above but with the following oligonucleotides:
SHOX2 variants a and b: forward: 5'-gtgttctcataggggccgccagc-3', reverse: 5'-acagcgctgtccagctgcagctgcg, probe: 5'-FAM-tcgcaccttatgtcaacgtaggtgc-BHQ1-3'
SHOX2a (NM_006884): forward primer and probe as depicted for both variants, reverse: 5'-ggcgtcacgttgcaatgactat-3'
SHOX2b (NM_003030): forward primer and probe as depicted for both variants, reverse: 5'-cagctgcgcctgaacctgc-3'
HPRT1 (NM_000194): forward: 5'-tgatagatccattcctatgactgtaga-3', reverse: aagacattctttccagttaaagttgag-3', probe: 5'-FAM-cccctgttgactggtcattacaatagctc-BHQ1-3'
SDHA (NM_004168): forward: 5'-tgggaacaagagggcatctg-3', reverse: 5'-ccaccactgcatcaaattcatg, probe: 5'-FAM-ccatttctgctcagtatccagtagtgg-BHQ1-3'
PCRs were performed using a 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR machine (Applied Biosystems, CA, USA) with the following temperature profile: 30 min/25°C, 15 min/95°C and 40 cycles with 15s/95°C and 1 min/60°C.
Whole-genome array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) analysis was performed using a 1M oligonucleotide array (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA) according to protocols provided by the manufacturer. Image analysis, normalization and annotation were based on Feature Extraction 9.1 (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA) using the default settings, and visualization of data was performed with the DNA Analytics software (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). DNA from the matched NAT tissue was used as a reference sample for the respective tumor DNA sample.
The Kendall's tau and Spearman rank correlation were used to test whether DNA methylation and gene amplification were statistically dependent. One-sided p-values were reported. The Wilcoxon Rank-Sum was used to test wether SHOX2 DNA methylation, gene amplification and RNA expression differed between the histological tumor subtypes.
SHOX2 DNA methylation, operating as a biomarker at a high specificity and sensitivity in a group of lung cancer patients and critical controls based on the analysis of bronchial lavage samples, has recently been proven to be a suitable means for diagnosing lung cancer . The biomarker also worked with samples that contained no visible tumor cell content. Since it has also been found that genomic gain at chromosome 3q, including SHOX2, is one of the most prevalent and significant alterations in lung cancer [19–23], the objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between gene amplification, expression and DNA methylation of SHOX2. In this study, it was shown that in 96% of all cases of lung tumor patients, the SHOX2 gene is hypermethylated and frequently accompanied by increased copy numbers of the respective locus. Hence, the positive performance of the SHOX2 DNA methylation as a biomarker in cytologically negative bronchial lavage samples might be due to a correlation of locus amplification and DNA methylation in tumor cells. Genomic amplification did not lead to a statistically significant higher expression of SHOX2 a or b transcripts as compared to the respective NAT. However, it has to be considered that SHOX2 mRNA levels were measured in homogenized (lysed) tumor tissues. Therefore, the extracted mRNA from tumor tissues is susceptible to contamination by non-neoplastic cells. This contamination might mask tumor-specific alterations. Such contamination affects mRNA expression analyses much more dramatically as compared to DNA methylation and gene amplification since the expected ranges (fold changes) of mRNA expression between different cell types can be much higher. In cancer research, the development of laser microdissection (LMD) systems has addressed this dilemma and could be implemented in the future to study SHOX2 expression in distinct tumor cell types.
Interestingly, NAT also showed low levels of methylation (< 0.3%). This observation might arise from a potential field effect, leading to alterations of methylation in normal components adjacent to the tumor, or from the existence of a subpopulation of cells with similarities to the tumor cells on an epigenetic level. Alterations of methylation in NAT and the existence of a subpopulation of cells within the normal epithelia with epigenetic similarities to the tumor cells have previously been reported in several cancers [33, 34]. In addition, tumor development and progression occur as an interaction between tumor cells and their stromal environment [for review: [35, 36]], and the concept of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) as a driver of tumor progression has become more important in recent years [37, 38]. Thus, cells, which might not allow for a morphological cancer diagnosis do already harbour the cancerogenic information by their epigenetic state. However, in order to address the question of whether methylation in NAT comes from such a field effect or is also present in tissue from healthy individuals, normal components at larger distances from the tumor or in tissue from healthy controls would have to be analyzed.
Both, a potential field effect on an epigenetic level, as well as a concerted mechanism of gene amplification and DNA methylation, renders DNA methylation an attractive source of biomarkers for the diagnosis of cancer in body fluids where sensitive detection is required. The reinforced epigenetic signal, together with chromosomal rearrangements and thus locus amplifications, may be part of a cellular mechanism during tumorigenesis. Therefore, DNA methylation may be preferrentially employed as a diagnostic test compared to methods based on cell counting. Additionally, the detection and accurate quantification of DNA is easier as compared to protein and RNA, due to the higher stability of DNA in quantitative real-time PCR. This study also indicates that a combination of genome-wide DNA methylation analysis, i.e. MeDIP and DMH, and CGH is effective for the screening of candidate marker genes and therefore might also influence the discovery of novel biomarkers for clinical applications. A multiplexing of such markers, ideally from different chromosomes might further improve a diagnostic test.
However, the functional relationship between DNA methylation and amplification as well as the underlying pathomechanism remains to be elucidated. It is not yet clear whether DNA methylation is a response reaction to locus amplification or if DNA hypermethylation promotes destabilization of the genome and with that gene amplification. However, it is well acknowledged that a genome-wide hypomethylation induces chromosomal instability [for review: ] and that genome-wide hypomethylation in cancer goes hand-in-hand with gene-specific hypermethylation, e.g. of tumor suppressor genes [for review: ]. Thus, SHOX2 hypermethylation in lung cancer might be indicative of an overall hypomethylation of the corresponding chromosomal region and therefore of genetic instability which results in gene amplification.
The tumor-specific hypermethylation of SHOX2 and its frequent gene amplification in lung cancer renders SHOX2 DNA methylation is an attractive biomarker for lung cancer when sensitive detection is desired, i.e. in bronchial lavage specimens.
Comparative Genomic Hybridization
Differential Methylation Hybridization
Methylated DNA Immunoprecipitation
Normal Adjacent Tissues
- SHOX2 :
Short Stature Homeobox 2
- Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008, 58: 71-96. 10.3322/CA.2007.0010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roth K, Hardie JA, Andreassen AH, Leh F, Eagan TM: Predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy: a retrospective cohort study comparing different combinations of sampling techniques. BMC Pulm Med. 2008, 8: 2-10.1186/1471-2466-8-2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Greenberg AK, Lee MS: Biomarkers for lung cancer: clinical uses. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2007, 13: 249-55. 10.1097/MCP.0b013e32819f8f06.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chorostowska-Wynimko J, Szpechcinski A: The impact of genetic markers on the diagnosis of lung cancer: a current perspective. J Thorac Oncol. 2007, 2: 1044-1051. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318158eed4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fleischhacker M, Schmidt B: Circulating nucleic acids (CNAs) and cancer--a survey. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007, 1775: 181-232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmiemann V, Böcking A, Kazimirek M, Onofre AS, Gabbert HE, Kappes R, Gerharz CD, Grote HJ: Methylation assay for the diagnosis of lung cancer on bronchial aspirates: a cohort study. Clin Cancer Res. 2005, 11: 7728-7734. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0999.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Anglim PP, Alonzo TA, Laird-Offringa IA: DNA methylation-based biomarkers for early detection of non-small cell lung cancer: an update. Mol Cancer. 2008, 7: 81-10.1186/1476-4598-7-81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Anglim PP, Galler JS, Koss MN, Hagen JA, Turla S, Campan M, Weisenberger DJ, Laird PW, Siegmund KD, Laird-Offringa IA: Identification of a panel of sensitive and specific DNA methylation markers for squamous cell lung cancer. Mol Cancer. 2008, 7: 62-10.1186/1476-4598-7-62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ehrich M, Field JK, Liloglou T, Xinarianos G, Oeth P, Nelson MR, Cantor CR, van den Boom D: Cytosine methylation profiles as a molecular marker in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2006, 66: 10911-10918. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Daskalos A, Nikolaidis G, Xinarianos G, Savvari P, Cassidy A, Zakopoulou R, Kotsinas A, Gorgoulis V, Field JK, Liloglou T: Hypomethylation of retrotransposable elements correlates with genomic instability in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2009, 124: 81-87. 10.1002/ijc.23849.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robertson KD: DNA methylation and human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2005, 6: 597-610. 10.1038/nrg1655.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ting AH, McGarvey KM, Baylin SB: The cancer epigenome--components and functional correlates. Genes Dev. 2006, 20: 3215-3231. 10.1101/gad.1464906.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Laird PW: The power and the promise of DNA methylation markers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003, 3: 253-266. 10.1038/nrc1045.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt B, Liebenberg V, Dietrich D, Schlegel T, Kneip C, Seegebarth A, Seemann S, Distler J, Tetzner R, Weickmann S, Wille U, Liloglou T, Walshaw M, Fleischhacker M, Witt C, Field JK: SHOX2 DNA Methylation is a Biomarker for the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Based on Bronchial Aspirates. BMC Cancer. 2010, 10: 600-10.1186/1471-2407-10-600.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Blaschke RJ, Monaghan AP, Schiller S, Schechinger B, Rao E, Padilla-Nash H, Ried T, Rappold GA: SHOT, a SHOX-related homeobox gene, is implicated in craniofacial, brain, heart, and limb development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998, 95: 2406-2411. 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2406.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Blaschke RJ, Hahurij ND, Kuijper S, Just S, Wisse LJ, Deissler K, Maxelon T, Anastassiadis K, Spitzer J, Hardt SE, Schöler H, Feitsma H, Rottbauer W, Blum M, Meijlink F, Rappold G, Gittenberger-de Groot AC: Targeted mutation reveals essential functions of the homeodomain transcription factor Shox2 in sinoatrial and pacemaking development. Circulation. 2007, 115: 1830-1838. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.637819.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Clement-Jones M, Schiller S, Rao E, Blaschke RJ, Zuniga A, Zeller R, Robson SC, Binder G, Glass I, Strachan T, Lindsay S, Rappold GA: The short stature homeobox gene SHOX is involved in skeletal abnormalities in Turner syndrome. Hum Mol Genet. 2000, 9: 695-702. 10.1093/hmg/9.5.695.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marchini A, Rappold G, Schneider KU: SHOX at a glance: from gene to protein. Arch Physiol Biochem. 2007, 113: 116-123. 10.1080/13813450701531201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Qian J, Massion PP: Role of chromosome 3q amplification in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008, 3: 212-5. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181663544.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shen H, Gao W, Wu YJ, Qiu HR, Shu YQ: Multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization reveal molecular events in lung adenocarcinomas and squamous cell lung carcinomas. Biomed Pharmacother. 2009, 63: 396-403. 10.1016/j.biopha.2008.08.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dehan E, Ben-Dor A, Liao W, Lipson D, Frimer H, Rienstein S, Simansky D, Krupsky M, Yaron P, Friedman E, Rechavi G, Perlman M, Aviram-Goldring A, Izraeli S, Bittner M, Yakhini Z, Kaminski N: Chromosomal aberrations and gene expression profiles in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2007, 56: 175-84. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.12.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yen CC, Liang SC, Jong YJ, Chen YJ, Lin CH, Chen YM, Wu YC, Su WC, Huang CY, Tseng SW, Whang-Peng J: Chromosomal aberrations of malignant pleural effusions of lung adenocarcinoma: different cytogenetic changes are correlated with genders and smoking habits. Lung Cancer. 2007, 57: 292-301. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.04.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huang YT, Heist RS, Chirieac LR, Lin X, Skaug V, Zienolddiny S, Haugen A, Wu MC, Wang Z, Su L, Asomaning K, Christiani DC: Genome-wide analysis of survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 2660-7. 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.7906.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kneip C, Schmidt B, Fleischhacker M, Seegebarth A, Lewin J, Flemming N, Seemann S, Schlegel T, Witt C, Liebenberg V, Dietrich D: A novel method for sensitive and specific detection of DNA methylation biomarkers based on DNA restriction during PCR cycling. Biotechniques. 2009, 47: 737-44. 10.2144/000113208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Down TA, Rakyan VK, Turner DJ, Flicek P, Li H, Kulesha E, Gräf S, Johnson N, Herrero J, Tomazou EM, Thorne NP, Bäckdahl L, Herberth M, Howe KL, Jackson DK, Miretti MM, Marioni JC, Birney E, Hubbard TJ, Durbin R, Tavaré S, Beck S: A Bayesian deconvolution strategy for immunoprecipitation-based DNA methylome analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2008, 26: 779-85. 10.1038/nbt1414.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD: Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001, 25: 402-8. 10.1006/meth.2001.1262.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Winer J, Jung CK, Shackel I, Williams PM: Development and validation of real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for monitoring gene expression in cardiac myocytes in vitro. Anal Biochem. 1999, 270: 41-9. 10.1006/abio.1999.4085.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cottrell SE, Distler J, Goodman NS, Mooney SH, Kluth A, Olek A, Schwope I, Tetzner R, Ziebarth H, Berlin K: A real-time PCR assay for DNA-methylation using methylation-specific blockers. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32: e10-10.1093/nar/gnh008.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Herman JG, Baylin SB: Gene silencing in cancer in association with promoter hypermethylation. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349: 2042-2054. 10.1056/NEJMra023075.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Warnecke PM, Stirzaker C, Melki JR, Millar DS, Paul CL, Clark SJ: Detection and measurement of PCR bias in quantitative methylation analysis of bisulphite-treated DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25: 4422-4426. 10.1093/nar/25.21.4422.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wojdacz TK, Borgbo T, Hansen LL: Primer design versus PCR bias in methylation independent PCR amplifications. Epigenetics. 2009, 4: 231-234.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shen L, Guo Y, Chen X, Ahmed S, Issa JP: Optimizing annealing temperature overcomes bias in bisulfite PCR methylation analysis. Biotechniques. 2007, 42: 48-52. 10.2144/000112312.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yan PS, Venkataramu C, Ibrahim A, Liu JC, Shen RZ, Diaz NM, Centeno B, Weber F, Leu YW, Shapiro CL, Eng C, Yeatman TJ, Huang TH: Mapping geographic zones of cancer risk with epigenetic biomarkers in normal breast tissue. Clin Cancer Res. 2006, 12: 6626-6636. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0467.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dietrich D, Lesche R, Tetzner R, Krispin M, Dietrich J, Haedicke W, Schuster M, Kristiansen G: Analysis of DNA Methylation of Multiple Genes in Microdissected Cells From Formalin-fixed and Paraffin-embedded Tissues. J Histochem Cytochem. 2009, 57: 477-489. 10.1369/jhc.2009.953026.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Witz IP: Tumor-microenvironment interactions: dangerous liaisons. Adv Cancer Res. 2008, 100: 203-229. full_text.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li H, Fan X, Houghton J: Tumor microenvironment: the role of the tumor stroma in cancer. J Cell Biochem. 2007, 101: 805-815. 10.1002/jcb.21159.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Guarino M, Rubino B, Ballabio G: The role of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer pathology. Pathology. 2007, 39: 305-318. 10.1080/00313020701329914.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Soltermann A, Tischler V, Arbogast S, Braun J, Probst-Hensch N, Weder W, Moch H, Kristiansen G: Prognostic significance of epithelial-mesenchymal and mesenchymal-epithelial transition protein expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008, 14: 7430-7437. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0935.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ehrlich M: Cancer-linked DNA hypomethylation and its relationship to hypermethylation. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2006, 310: 251-274. full_text.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/102/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.