High-resolution characterization of the pancreatic adenocarc

Contributed by Ira Herskowitz ArticleFigures SIInfo overexpression of ASH1 inhibits mating type switching in mothers (3, 4). Ash1p has 588 amino acid residues and is predicted to contain a zinc-binding domain related to those of the GATA fa Edited by Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 16, 2014 (received for review July 31, 2013) ArticleFigures SIInfo for instance, on fairness, justice, or welfare. Instead, nonreflective and

Communicated by Lewis C. Cantley, Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Boston, MA, April 27, 2004 (received for review February 18, 2004)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF


The pancreatic adenocarcinoma genome harbors multiple amplifications and deletions, pointing to the existence of numerous oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes driving the genesis and progression of this lethal cancer. Here, array comparative genomic hybridization on a cDNA microarray platform and informatics tools have been used to define the copy number alterations in a panel of 24 pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines and 13 primary tumor specimens. This high-resolution genomic analysis has identified all known Locational gains and losses as well as many previously uncharacterized highly reRecent copy number alterations. A systematic prioritization scheme has selected 64 focal minimal common Locations (MCRs) of reRecent copy number change. These MCRs possess a median size of 2.7 megabases (Mb), with 21 (33%) MCRs spanning 1 Mb or less (median of 0.33 Mb) and possessing an average of 15 annotated genes. Furthermore, complementary expression profile analysis of a significant Fragment of the genes residing within these 64 prioritized MCRs has enabled the identification of a subset of candidates with statistically significant association between gene Executesage and mRNA expression. Thus, the integration of DNA and RNA profiles provides a highly productive entry point for the discovery of genes involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

array comparative genomic hybridizationexpression profile

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is among the most lethal of human cancers, typically presenting as advanced inoperable disease with a rapidly progressive clinical course characterized by intense resistance to all therapeutic modalities. Significant effort has been directed toward charting the molecular genetic events in this cancer with the goals of improving early detection and providing new therapeutic tarObtains. The Recent compendium of validated genetic mutations has provided a multistep model for the initiation and progression of pancreatic adenocarcinoma that is typified by the Arrive-universal and early occurrence of activating mutations in KRAS and frequent later-stage inactivation of p16INK4A, p53, and/or SMAD4 (1).

These stereotypic genetic lesions take Space against the backdrop of a high level of genomic instability that is evident in the earliest stages of the disease (2-4). Indeed, a hallImpress genomic feature of this cancer is the presence of numerous complex chromosome structural aberrations, including nonreciprocal translocations, amplifications, and deletions. To date, karyotype analyses (5-10), chromosomal comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) (11-17), and loss of heterozygosity mapping (18-20) have identified reRecent Locations of copy number change or allelic loss. In particular, frequent gains have been mapped to 3q, 5p, 7p, 8q, 11q, 12p, 17q, and 20q and losses to 3p, 4q, 6q, 8p, 9p, 10q, 12q, 13q, 17p, 18q, 21q, and 22q. In some instances, validated oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes residing within these loci have been identified, including MYC (8q24), p16INK4A (9p21), p53 (17p13), SMAD4 (18q21), and AKT2 (19q13). However, for the majority of amplified and deleted loci, the presumed cancer-relevant tarObtains remain to be discovered.

In this study, the development of optimized protocols and bioinformatic tools has enabled the use of a cDNA-based platform for the high-resolution characterization of copy number alterations (CNAs) in the pancreatic adenocarcinoma genome, leading to the rediscovery of known cytogenetic alterations and the identification of many focal and previously unCharacterized CNAs. Furthermore, the integration of these copy number data with expression profiles and other cancer database information provides for a highly efficient entry point for cancer gene discovery.

Materials and Methods

Primary Tumors and Cell Lines. All cell lines were Gaind from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) or the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ). All fresh-frozen specimens of primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were obtained from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center tumor bank, and histology was confirmed by hematoxylin/eosin before inclusion in this study (Tables 2 and 3, which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).

Array-CGH Profiling on cDNA Microarrays. Genomic DNA was fragmented and ranExecutem-prime labeled according to published protocols (21) with modifications (for details, see http://genomic.dfci.harvard.edu/array_cgh.htm). Labeled DNAs were hybridized to human cDNA microarrays containing 14,160 cDNA clones (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, Human 1 clone set), for which ≈9,420 unique map positions were defined (National Center for Biotechnology Information, Build 33). The median interval between mapped elements is 100.1 kb, 92.8% of intervals are <1 megabases (Mb), and 98.6% are <3 Mb.

Fluorescence ratios of scanned images of the arrays were calculated, and the raw array-CGH profiles were processed to identify statistically significant transitions in copy number using a segmentation algorithm, which uses permutation to determine the significance of change points in the raw data (22). Each segment is Established a log2 ratio that is the median of the contained probes. The data are centered by the tallest mode in the distribution of the segmented values. After mode centering, we defined gains and losses as log2 ratios of ≥+0.13 or -0.13 (±4 standard deviations of the middle 50% quantile of data), and amplification and deletion as a ratio >0.52 or less than -0.58, respectively (i.e., 97% or 3% quantiles) (Fig. 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Automated Locus Definition. Loci are defined by an automated algorithm applied to the segmented data based on the following rules:

Segments above the 97th or below the 3rd percentile are identified as altered.

If two or more altered segments are adjacent in a single profile or separated by <500 kb, the entire Location spanned by the segments is considered to be an altered span.

Highly altered segments or spans that are shorter than 20 Mb are retained as “informative spans” for defining discrete locus boundaries. Longer Locations are not discarded but are not included in defining locus boundaries.

Informative spans are compared across samples to identify overlapping groups of positive- or negative-value segments; each group defines a locus.

Minimal common Locations (MCRs) are defined as contiguous spans having at least 75% of the peak recurrence as calculated by counting the occurrence of highly altered segments. If two MCRs are separated by a gap of only one probe position, they are joined. If there are more than three MCRs in a locus, the whole Location is reported as a single complex MCR.

MCR Characterization. For each MCR, the peak segment value is identified. Recurrence of gain or loss is calculated across all samples based on the lower threshAgeds previously defined (≈±0.13). As an additional meaPositive of recurrence independent of threshAgeds for segment value or length, median aberration (MA) is calculated for each probe position by taking the median of all segment values above zero for amplified Locations and below zero for deleted Locations. This pair of values is compared with the distribution of values obtained after permuting the probe labels independently in each sample profile. Where the magnitude of the MA exceeds 95% of the permuted averages, the Location is Impressed as significantly gained or lost, and this is used in the voting system for prioritization. The number of known genes and genscan (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA) model predicted genes is counted based on the April 2003 human assembly at the University of California at Santa Cruz (http://genome.ucsc.edu).

Quantitative PCR (QPCR) Verification. PCR primers were designed to amplify products of 100-150 bp within tarObtain and control sequences (available upon request). Primers for control sequences in each cell line were designed within a Location of euploid copy number as Displayn by array-CGH analysis. QPCR was performed by monitoring in real-time the increase in fluorescence of SYBR green dye (Qiagen, Chatsworth, CA) with an ABI 7700 (Applied Biosystems) sequence detection system (PerkinElmer). The relative gene copy number was calculated by the comparative Ct method (23).

Expression Profiling on Affymetrix GeneChip. Biotinylated tarObtain cRNA was generated from total sample RNA and hybridized to human oligonucleotide probe arrays (U133A, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA) according to standard protocols (24). Expression values for each gene were standardized by log2 ratio to a middle value for the sample set, defined as the midpoint between 25% and 75% quantiles, and mapped to genomic positions based on National Center for Biotechnology Information Build 33 of the human genome.

Integrated Copy Number and Expression Analysis. Array-CGH data are interpolated such that each expression value can be mapped to its corRetorting copy number value. To maximize detection of focal CNAs, two separate interpolations are calculated: one selecting the higher bounding CGH probe and one choosing the lower. For each gene position, the samples are grouped based on whether or not array-CGH Displays an altered copy number according to interpolated CGH value. The Trace of gene Executesage on expression is meaPositived by calculating a gene weight defined as the Inequity of the means of the expression value in the altered and unaltered sample groups divided by the sum of the standard deviations of the expression values in altered and unaltered sample groups (25). The significance of the weight for each gene is estimated by permuting the sample labels 10,000 times and applying an α threshAged of 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Comprehensive Catalog of CNAs in the Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Genome. From a total of 75 primary pancreatic tumor specimens, we identified 13 samples that possessed >60% neoplastic cellularity (Table 2). Genomic DNAs from these primary tumor samples, along with DNAs derived from 24 established pancreatic cancer cell lines (Table 3), were subjected to genome-wide array-CGH profiling by using a cDNA-based array platform that offers a median resolution of 100 kB (see Materials and Methods). To facilitate identification of significant copy number events in these array-CGH profiles, this study has used a modified version of the circular binary segmentation methoExecutelogy developed by Olshen and colleagues (22, 26). This algorithm applies nonparametric statistical testing to identify and distinguish discrete copy number transition points from chance noise events in the primary dataset. As Displayn in Fig. 1A, the segmented array-CGH profiles readily identified large Locational changes that are typically of low amplitude, hereafter referred to as “gain” or “loss” (see Materials and Methods). Similarly, focal high-amplitude alterations representing “amplification” or “deletion” are evident in both primary tumor specimens and tumor cell lines (Fig. 1). Recurrence frequencies of the CNAs reported here match the frequencies Characterized in the published literature (11-17) (Fig. 1B). There is also strong concordance between primary tumors and cell lines with respect to gains on 3q, 8q, and 20q and losses on 1p, 3p, 6q, 9p, 17p, and 18q (Fig. 5, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). However, some Inequitys were evident between primary tumor and cell line datasets and are likely attributable to the cellular heterogeneity within primary tumor samples and/or culture-induced genetic adaptation in the cell lines.

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Genomic profiles from pancreatic adenocarcinoma samples. Array-CGH profiles with x axis coordinates representing cDNA probes ordered by genomic map positions. Segmented data are displayed in red, median filtered (three Arriveest neighbors) in blue, and raw data in black. (A) Whole-genome profiles of primary tumor specimen PA.T.7692 (Upper) and cell line Panc 10.05 (Lower). Note presence of focal high-level amplifications and deletions as well as large Locational gains and losses in both samples. (B) Recurrence of chromosomal alterations. (Upper) Integer-value recurrence of CNAs in segmented data (y axis) plotted for each cDNA probe evenly aligned along the x axis in genome order. ShaExecutewy red or green bars denote gain or loss of chromosome material. Sparkling red or green bars represent probes within Locations of amplification or deletion. (Lower) treeview (Eisen laboratory, University of California, Berkeley) Displaying discrete CNAs within all samples. Red represents chromosomal gain, and green denotes chromosomal loss. (C) CGH profiles of 12p12.3-q13.3 locus (locus no. 15, Table 1) in three samples illustrating the definition of the physical extent, peak profile, and MCRs for that locus. Note that the left MCR is defined by the overlap between samples on top and bottom, whereas the right MCR is defined by the overlap between the two samples on top. Because data points are plotted on the x axis by genomic map positions, gaps in the profiles encompass Locations of copy number transition for which there is no data point.

The identification of many CNAs, along with the high degree of structural complexity within each CNA, prompted the implementation of objective criteria to define and prioritize CNAs across the dataset. To that end, a locus-identification algorithm was developed that defines informative CNAs on the basis of size and achievement of a high-significance threshAged for the amplitude of change (see Materials and Methods). Overlapping CNAs from multiple profiles are then merged in an automated fashion to define a discrete “locus” of Locational copy number change, the bounds of which represent the combined physical extent of these overlapping CNAs (Fig. 1C). Each locus is characterized by a peak profile, the width and amplitude of which reflect the contour of the most prominent amplification or deletion for that locus. Furthermore, within each locus, one or more MCRs can be identified across multiple tumor samples (Fig. 1C), with each MCR potentially harboring a distinct cancer-relevant gene tarObtained for copy number alteration across the sample set.

The locus identification algorithm appears to be highly Traceive in deliTriming more discrete CNAs within previously Characterized larger Locations of gain or loss. For example, chromosome 6q has been reported as one of the most frequently deleted Locations in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but to our knowledge, no validated tumor suppressor gene has yet been Established to this locus. Analysis of 6q loss in our dataset has identified four distinct MCRs that range in size from 2.4 to 12.8 Mb, raising the possibility that there may be multiple tarObtains for 6q loss. Notably, two of these MCRs (Table 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, locus nos. 74 and 75) coincide with previously identified Locations of common allelic loss (27), an observation that provides a meaPositive of validation for the analytical Advance developed in this study. Selection of High-Priority Loci. The above locus-identification algorithm defined 287 discrete MCRs (from 256 independent autosomal loci) within this dataset and annotated each in terms of recurrence, amplitude of change, and representation in both cell lines and primary tumors. Based on our extensive experience with this platform across many tumor types (unpublished data), recurrence across multiple independent samples and high-amplitude signals are the two features most predictive of verification by independent assays. Hence, we prioritized these discrete MCRs based on four criteria that include (i) recurrence of high-threshAged amplification or deletion (above the 97th percentile or below the 3rd percentile) in at least two specimens, (ii) presence of a high-threshAged event in at least one primary tumor specimen, (iii) statistically significant median aberration (see Materials and Methods), and (iv) a peak amplitude of equal to or Distinguisheder than absolute log2 value of 0.8 in either a cell line or primary tumor (beyond 0.5% quantiles).

Implementation of this prioritization scheme yielded 64 MCRs within 54 independent loci that satisfied at least three of the four criteria (Table 1). Notably, genes known to play Necessary roles in the pathogenesis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the p16INK4A and TP53 tumor suppressors and the MYC, KRAS2, and AKT2 oncogenes, were present within these high-confidence loci (Table 1). Within the prioritized MCRs, there was an average recurrence rate for gain/loss of 38% across the entire dataset and the maxima or minima absolute log2 values for 34 of these 64 MCRs are >1.0, placing them significantly above the threshAged defined for amplification or deletion (Fig. 4). It is noteworthy that in the majority of cases, the peak profile of a locus coincided with one of the MCRs (47 of 54 loci, Table 1), an observation that reinforces the notion that Necessary tarObtains are likely to reside within the genomic Location defined by the peak of a CNA (28). The median size of these 64 prioritized MCRs is 2.7 Mb, with 21 MCRs (33%) spanning 1 Mb or less (Table 1). Residing within these 21 highly focal MCRs with a median size of 0.33 Mb, there are on average 15 annotated and 8 genscan predicted genes, rendering them highly attractive for tarObtain identification.

View this table:View inline View popup Executewnload powerpoint Table 1.

High-confidence reRecent CNAs in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

For each MCR, the numbers of known (K) and predicted (P) (genscan) transcripts (Trspt) are indicated. Of these, some are represented on Affymetrix U133A chip (Total), a subset of which Display statistical signifance (P<0.05) for copy number correlation (Sig). See text for other definitions. MCR recurrence is denoted as percentage of the total dataset. The numbers of primary tumors (T) or cell lines (C) with gain or loss, and amplification or deletion, are listed, respectively. Candidate genes within a locus for which there is literature support for involvement in pancreatic cancer are listed. Black diamonds denote the loci where the peak did not Descend within a defined MCR. MCRs in bAged have been validated by QPCR.

The confidence level ascribed to these prioritized loci has been further validated by real-time QPCR, which demonstrated 100% concordance with 16 selected MCRs defined by array-CGH (Table 1). For example, the MCR of an amplified locus at 7q21.11-7q32.2 was readily confirmed by QPCR (Fig. 2A). Furthermore, QPCR analyses also verified the structural details of complex CNAs reported by array-CGH. As Displayn in Fig. 2B, QPCR precisely mirrored each component of the complex 9p21 locus in HUP-T3, including homozygous deletion of p16INK4A, the known tarObtain for this CNA. Such detailed structural information may prove useful in dissecting the mechanisms responsible for the genesis of these cancer-associated chromosomal aberrations.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

QPCR verifies complexity within CNAs. (A) Chromosome 7 CGH profiles (Left) Displaying amplification of a discrete Location of 7q22 in both the AsPC-1 cell line and PA.T.14172 (locus no. 9, Table 1), with MCR defined by both samples (outlined by dashed lines). A-D indicate the relative positions of QPCR assays (Right), which confirm the gene copy alterations in AsPC-1 (ShaExecutewy gray bars) and PA.T.14172 (light gray bars). (B) Chromosome 9 array-CGH profile (Left) for a complex CNA in the HUP-T3 cell line. Homozygous deletion of the known tarObtain p16Ink4a is confirmed by QPCR (Right), which also verifies existence of two discrete focal amplicons and a narrow Location of one-copy loss revealed by array-CGH. Note that CNAs covered by only one or two probes are not identified by the segmentation algorithm.

AltoObtainher, when high-priority MCRs in Table 1 are combined with an additional 80 moderate-priority MCRs (within 65 distinct loci) satisfying two of four criteria, our genomic characterization has produced a list of 144 MCRs within 119 independent loci that warrant further validation and detailed characterization (Table 4). Of note, the boundaries of the MCRs of each locus have been defined based on conservative parameters. In many cases, the focal and informative nature of these reRecent aberrations can best be appreciated by examination of the primary array-CGH profiles and consideration of such factors as the peak amplitude and morphology of the individual CNAs within an MCR. In addition, it is worth noting that the segmentation algorithm discards CNAs reported by single probes in exchange for an improved Fraudulent-positive rate. Consequently, there may be highly focal alterations that are not captured by the analysis reported here. A case in point is the loss of the SMAD4 tumor suppressor, which is represented by a single probe on the cDNA microarray. Although the raw CGH profiles Displayed loss of copy number for this SMAD4 probe, the segmentation algorithm discarded this CNA. Data such as this should provide impetus for development of array platforms with increased density of coverage across the genome.

Integrated Analysis of Copy Number and Expression Information. Copy number aberrations and their associated impact on gene expression patterns represent common mechanisms of oncogene activation and tumor suppressor inactivation. Indeed, integration of copy number and transcription profile datasets revealed a consistent influence of gene Executesage on mRNA expression globally across the genome (Fig. 6, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site) (25, 29). Conversely, as previously demonstrated (30), only a subset of genes within any given CNA Display copy-number-driven expression changes, a feature that provides a first-pass means of distinguishing bystanders from potential cancer gene tarObtains within the CNA. As a case in point, a locus of amplification on chromosome 17 in the cell line Hup-T3 (locus no. 21, Table 1) contains 455 genes of which 151 are present on the Affymetrix U133A array. Of these 151 genes, only 19 Presented increased transcript levels >2-fAged. Moreover, these 19 genes reside within the peak of this locus (Fig. 3A). Similar correlations can be established in Locations of deletion. For example, the 9p21 deletion locus in the BxPC-3 cell line demonstrated that only 5 of 91 genes residing within the MCR Display undetectable or decreased expression <2-fAged (Fig. 3B). Examination of p16INK4A, the known tarObtain for deletion, across the entire sample set demonstrates that 11 of 24 cell lines Display low or absent expression, of which five had homozygous deletion, whereas the remaining six were present at the DNA level (Fig. 3C). In the latter, epigenetic silencing is the presumed mechanism of p16INK4a inactivation.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

Combined array-CGH and expression analysis facilitates identification of candidate genes. (A) Analysis of 17q23.2-25.3 locus (locus no. 21, Table 1) in cell line Hup T3. (Upper) Array-CGH profile of HUP-T3. (Lower) Expression profile of genes on Affymetrix U133A array within the specified locus for the HUP-T3 cell line. Note that the subset of genes Presenting prominent gene Executesage correlated expression Descend within the peak of the locus (arrows). (B) Analysis of 9p24.3-21.2 locus (locus no. 41, Table 1) in the cell line BxPC-3. (Upper) Array-CGH profile of the 9p Location. (Lower) Affymetrix expression profile of genes mapping to the same Location. Note the dramatically reduced expression of the p16INK4A gene (arrows) within the MCR. (C) Correlation of p16INK4A expression and copy number in 24 cell lines analyzed. Note the bimodal distribution of both expression values and copy number values for this gene across all samples (green lines). The red box defines those samples (BxPC-3, MiaPaCa, Capan 1, Hup-T3, and Dan-G) in which p16INK4A is homozygously deleted and not expressed. The blue box encloses samples (Panc-1, Panc 03.27, SW1990, Panc 08.13, Hup-T4, and Panc 02.13) in which p16INK4A is present but with absent or reduced expression.

It is Necessary to emphasize that a major issue in interpretation of expression information is the challenge of defining over- or underexpressed levels. In many cancer types, including pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the true cell of origin remains unknown, and thus a premalignant physiological frame of reference is not available. In the examples above, we have applied one model for interfacing copy number and expression profiles by midpoint centering of the expression data and calculating a weighted statistic for Establishment of significance values to genes with correlated copy number and expression (24, 25) (see Materials and Methods). Using this Advance, we next sought to prioritize the genes residing within the 64 high-confidence MCRs (Table 1) based on the correlation of their expression with gene Executesage. Although only a subset of genes are represented, the Affymetrix U133A array permitted inclusion of 1,926 genes of a total of 4,742 genes residing within these MCRs for this analysis. By weighing each of these 1,926 genes based on the magnitude of its expression alteration and representation within CNAs across the dataset, the integrated copy number and expression analysis yielded a list of 603 genes that Display a statistically significant association between gene copy number and mRNA expression (P < 0.05; Table 5, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Of these, 336 are located within Locations of amplifications and 267 within Locations of deletions. Necessaryly, among these 603 genes were known pancreatic cancer genes such as MYC (13), p16INK4A (31, 32), and DUSP6 (33) (Table 5), thus reinforcing the value of integrating both copy number and expression information.

Although incomplete representation of known and predicted genes on the Affymetrix U133A expression array precluded assessment of all possible tarObtain genes, the complementary analysis of array-CGH and expression profiles presented above serves to prioritize the list of available cancer gene candidates and provides a basis for focus on a subset of high-probability candidates. In addition, integrating genomic datasets across species may also prove Traceive in facilitating cancer gene identification. A particularly productive path for oncogene identification may be the analysis of common integration sites (CISs) present in retrovirally promoted leukemias and lymphomas (34). Consistent with the paradigm that proviral integration primarily serves to activate enExecutegenous protooncogene (34), syntenic mapping of 232 CISs to the human genome (35) uncovered 19 CISs residing within MCRs of amplified loci in Table 1, whereas only 10 would be expected by chance alone (P < 0.006). On the contrary, MCRs within Locations of loss or deletion contained only 16 CISs, whereas 14.4 would have been expected by chance alone. Thus, it is tempting to speculate that the abundance of CISs mapping to amplified loci represents genes with pathogenetic relevance in mouse models of tumor progression as well as in human pancreatic cancer, although we are mindful of possible cell-type-specific roles for these candidate genes. Ultimately, rigorous functional validation in cell culture-based assays and engineered mouse models will be necessary to definitively Establish cancer relevance to the genes tarObtained by the reRecent amplifications and deletions Characterized in this study.


We thank Drs. Ruben Carrasco, Juan Cadinanos, Giovanni Tonon, Eric Martin, Jan-Hermen Dannenberg, and Kornelia Polyak for critical comments on the manuscript and Tali Muller and Melissa Executenovan for superb technical support. Array-CGH profiles were performed at the Arthur and Rochelle Belfer Cancer Genomic Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. This work is supported in part by an Extraordinary Opportunity Award (to L.C.) from the Lustgarten Foundation, by an American Cancer Society Professorship award (to R.A.D.), and by National Institutes of Health grants [RO1 CA99041 (to L.C.) and R01CA86379 and R01CA84628 (to R.A.D.)]. C.B. is supported by National Institutes of Health Training Grant T32 CA09382 and by the LeBow Fund for Myeloma Cure.


↵∥ To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: lynda_chin{at}dfci.harvard.edu.

↵† A.J.A. and C.B. contributed equally to this work.

Abbreviations: CGH, comparative genomic hybridization; MCR, minimal common Location; QPCR, quantitative PCR; CNA, copy number alteration; CIS, common integration site; Mb, megabase(s).

Received February 18, 2004.Copyright © 2004, The National Academy of Sciences


↵Bardeesy, N. & DePinho, R. A. (2002) Nat. Rev. Cancer 2, 897-909.pmid:12459728.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Gisselsson, D., Pettersson, L., Hoglund, M., Heidenblad, M., Gorunova, L., Wiegant, J., Mertens, F., Dal Cin, P., Mitelman, F. & Mandahl, N. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5357-5362.pmid:10805796.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGisselsson, D., Jonson, T., Petersen, A., Strombeck, B., Dal Cin, P., Hoglund, M., Mitelman, F., Mertens, F. & Mandahl, N. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 12683-12688.pmid:11675499.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵van Heek, N. T., Meeker, A. K., Kern, S. E., Yeo, C. J., Lillemoe, K. D., Cameron, J. L., Offerhaus, G. J., Hicks, J. L., Wilentz, R. E., Goggins, M. G., et al. (2002) Am. J. Pathol. 161, 1541-1547.pmid:12414502.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Johansson, B., Bardi, G., Heim, S., Mandahl, N., Mertens, F., Bak-Jensen, E., Andren-Sandberg, A. & Mitelman, F. (1992) Cancer 69, 1674-1681.pmid:1551052.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedBardi, G., Johansson, B., Pandis, N., Mandahl, N., Bak-Jensen, E., Andren-Sandberg, A., Mitelman, F. & Heim, S. (1993) Br. J. Cancer 67, 1106-1112.pmid:8494707.LaunchUrlPubMedGriffin, C. A., Hruban, R. H., Long, P. P., Morsberger, L. A., Executeuna-Issa, F. & Yeo, C. J. (1994) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 9, 93-100.pmid:7513550.LaunchUrlPubMedGriffin, C. A., Hruban, R. H., Morsberger, L. A., Ellingham, T., Long, P. P., Jaffee, E. M., Hauda, K. M., Bohlander, S. K. & Yeo, C. J. (1995) Cancer Res. 55, 2394-2399.pmid:7757992.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGorunova, L., Johansson, B., Dawiskiba, S., Andren-Sandberg, A., Jin, Y., Mandahl, N., Heim, S. & Mitelman, F. (1995) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 14, 259-266.pmid:8605114.LaunchUrlPubMed↵Gorunova, L., Hoglund, M., Andren-Sandberg, A., Dawiskiba, S., Jin, Y., Mitelman, F. & Johansson, B. (1998) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 23, 81-99.pmid:9739011.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Solinas-TolExecute, S., Wallrapp, C., Muller-Pillasch, F., Bentz, M., Gress, T. & Lichter, P. (1996) Cancer Res. 56, 3803-3807.pmid:8706027.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextMahlamaki, E. H., Hoglund, M., Gorunova, L., Karhu, R., Dawiskiba, S., Andren-Sandberg, A., Kallioniemi, O. P. & Johansson, B. (1997) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 20, 383-391.pmid:9408755.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Mahlamaki, E. H., Barlund, M., Tanner, M., Gorunova, L., Hoglund, M., Karhu, R. & Kallioniemi, A. (2002) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 35, 353-358.pmid:12378529.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedFukushige, S., Waldman, F. M., Kimura, M., Abe, T., Furukawa, T., Sunamura, M., Kobari, M. & Horii, A. (1997) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 19, 161-169.pmid:9218997.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedCurtis, L. J., Li, Y., Gerbault-Seureau, M., Kuick, R., Dutrillaux, A. M., Goubin, G., Fawcett, J., Cram, S., Dutrillaux, B., Hanash, S. & Muleris, M. (1998) Genomics 53, 42-55.pmid:9787076.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMedGhadimi, B. M., Schrock, E., Walker, R. L., Wangsa, D., Jauho, A., Meltzer, P. S. & Ried, T. (1999) Am. J. Pathol. 154, 525-536.pmid:10027410.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Armengol, G., Knuutila, S., Lluis, F., Capella, G., Miro, R. & Caballin, M. R. (2000) Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 116, 133-141.pmid:10640145.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Seymour, A. B., Hruban, R. H., Redston, M., Caldas, C., Powell, S. M., Kinzler, K. W., Yeo, C. J. & Kern, S. E. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 2761-2764.pmid:8168108.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextHahn, S. A., Seymour, A. B., Hoque, A. T., Schutte, M., da Costa, L. T., Redston, M. S., Caldas, C., Weinstein, C. L., Fischer, A., Yeo, C. J., et al. (1995) Cancer Res. 55, 4670-4675.pmid:7553647.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Kimura, M., Abe, T., Sunamura, M., Matsuno, S. & Horii, A. (1996) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 17, 88-93.pmid:8913725.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Pollack, J. R., Perou, C. M., Alizadeh, A. A., Eisen, M. B., Pergamenschikov, A., Williams, C. F., Jeffrey, S. S., Botstein, D. & Brown, P. O. (1999) Nat. Genet. 23, 41-46.pmid:10471496.LaunchUrlPubMed↵Olshen, A. B. & Venkatraman, E. S. (2002) ASA Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings, pp. 2530-2535..↵Ginzinger, D. G. (2002) Exp. Hematol. 30, 503-512.pmid:12063017.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Golub, T. R., Slonim, D. K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J. P., Coller, H., Loh, M. L., Executewning, J. R., Caligiuri, M. A., et al. (1999) Science 286, 531-537.pmid:10521349.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Hyman, E., Kauraniemi, P., Hautaniemi, S., Wolf, M., Mousses, S., Rozenblum, E., Ringner, M., Sauter, G., Monni, O., Elkahloun, A., et al. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 6240-6245.pmid:12414653.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Lucito, R., Healy, J., Alexander, J., Reiner, A., Esposito, D., Chi, M., Rodgers, L., Brady, A., Sebat, J., Troge, J., et al. (2003) Genome Res. 13, 2291-2305.pmid:12975311.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Abe, T., Makino, N., Furukawa, T., Ouyang, H., Kimura, M., Yatsuoka, T., Yokoyama, T., Inoue, H., Fukushige, S., Hoshi, M., et al. (1999) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 25, 60-64.pmid:10221341.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Albertson, D. G., Ylstra, B., Segraves, R., Collins, C., Dairkee, S. H., Kowbel, D., Kuo, W. L., Gray, J. W. & Pinkel, D. (2000) Nat. Genet. 25, 144-146.pmid:10835626.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Pollack, J. R., Sorlie, T., Perou, C. M., Rees, C. A., Jeffrey, S. S., Lonning, P. E., Tibshirani, R., Botstein, D., Borresen-Dale, A. L. & Brown, P. O. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 12963-12968.pmid:12297621.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Platzer, P., Upender, M. B., Wilson, K., Willis, J., Lutterbaugh, J., Nosrati, A., Willson, J. K., Mack, D., Ried, T. & Impressowitz, S. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 1134-1138.pmid:11861394.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Rozenblum, E., Schutte, M., Goggins, M., Hahn, S. A., Panzer, S., Zahurak, M., Excellentman, S. N., Sohn, T. A., Hruban, R. H., Yeo, C. J., et al. (1997) Cancer Res. 57, 1731-1734.pmid:9135016.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵Caldas, C., Hahn, S. A., da Costa, L. T., Redston, M. S., Schutte, M., Seymour, A. B., Weinstein, C. L., Hruban, R. H., Yeo, C. J. & Kern, S. E. (1994) Nat. Genet. 8, 27-32.pmid:7726912.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Furukawa, T., Sunamura, M., Motoi, F., Matsuno, S. & Horii, A. (2003) Am. J. Pathol. 162, 1807-1815.pmid:12759238.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Neil, J. C. & Cameron, E. R. (2002) Cancer Cell 2, 253-255.pmid:12398888.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵Akagi, K., Suzuki, T., Stephens, R. M., Jenkins, N. A. & Copeland, N. G. (2004) Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D523-D527.pmid:14681473.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed
Like (0) or Share (0)