Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer samples obtained by histologic macrodissection contain a relatively high stromal content that may significantly influence gene expression profiles. Differences between the gene expression signature derived from macrodi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Choi Il, Korolevich Susie, Kim Joseph, Kim Hark, Kim Chang, Munroe David J, Green Jeffrey E
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-06-01
Series:BMC Medical Genomics
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755-8794/4/48
id doaj-8706b0728e014c409cf76d48e8c56a0d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8706b0728e014c409cf76d48e8c56a0d2021-04-02T04:57:18ZengBMCBMC Medical Genomics1755-87942011-06-01414810.1186/1755-8794-4-48Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissectionChoi IlKorolevich SusieKim JosephKim HarkKim ChangMunroe David JGreen Jeffrey E<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer samples obtained by histologic macrodissection contain a relatively high stromal content that may significantly influence gene expression profiles. Differences between the gene expression signature derived from macrodissected gastric cancer samples and the signature obtained from isolated gastric cancer epithelial cells from the same biopsies using laser-capture microdissection (LCM) were evaluated for their potential experimental biases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RNA was isolated from frozen tissue samples of gastric cancer biopsies from 20 patients using both histologic macrodissection and LCM techniques. RNA from LCM was subject to an additional round of T7 RNA amplification. Expression profiling was performed using Affymetrix HG-U133A arrays. Genes identified in the expression signatures from each tissue processing method were compared to the set of genes contained within chromosomal regions found to harbor copy number aberrations in the tumor samples by array CGH and to proteins previously identified as being overexpressed in gastric cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Genes shown to have increased copy number in gastric cancer were also found to be overexpressed in samples obtained by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>value < 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in array data generated using microdissection. A set of 58 previously identified genes overexpressed in gastric cancer was also enriched in the gene signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in the signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.013). In contrast, 66 genes previously reported to be underexpressed in gastric cancer were enriched in the gene signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in the signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.89).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The tumor sampling technique biases the microarray results. LCM may be a more sensitive collection and processing method for the identification of potential tumor suppressor gene candidates in gastric cancer using expression profiling.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755-8794/4/48
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Choi Il
Korolevich Susie
Kim Joseph
Kim Hark
Kim Chang
Munroe David J
Green Jeffrey E
spellingShingle Choi Il
Korolevich Susie
Kim Joseph
Kim Hark
Kim Chang
Munroe David J
Green Jeffrey E
Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
BMC Medical Genomics
author_facet Choi Il
Korolevich Susie
Kim Joseph
Kim Hark
Kim Chang
Munroe David J
Green Jeffrey E
author_sort Choi Il
title Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
title_short Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
title_full Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
title_fullStr Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
title_full_unstemmed Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
title_sort distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection <it>versus </it>histologic macrodissection
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Genomics
issn 1755-8794
publishDate 2011-06-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer samples obtained by histologic macrodissection contain a relatively high stromal content that may significantly influence gene expression profiles. Differences between the gene expression signature derived from macrodissected gastric cancer samples and the signature obtained from isolated gastric cancer epithelial cells from the same biopsies using laser-capture microdissection (LCM) were evaluated for their potential experimental biases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RNA was isolated from frozen tissue samples of gastric cancer biopsies from 20 patients using both histologic macrodissection and LCM techniques. RNA from LCM was subject to an additional round of T7 RNA amplification. Expression profiling was performed using Affymetrix HG-U133A arrays. Genes identified in the expression signatures from each tissue processing method were compared to the set of genes contained within chromosomal regions found to harbor copy number aberrations in the tumor samples by array CGH and to proteins previously identified as being overexpressed in gastric cancer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Genes shown to have increased copy number in gastric cancer were also found to be overexpressed in samples obtained by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>value < 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in array data generated using microdissection. A set of 58 previously identified genes overexpressed in gastric cancer was also enriched in the gene signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in the signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.013). In contrast, 66 genes previously reported to be underexpressed in gastric cancer were enriched in the gene signature identified by microdissection (LS <it>P </it>< 10<sup>-5</sup>), but not in the signature identified by macrodissection (LS <it>P </it>= 0.89).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The tumor sampling technique biases the microarray results. LCM may be a more sensitive collection and processing method for the identification of potential tumor suppressor gene candidates in gastric cancer using expression profiling.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755-8794/4/48
work_keys_str_mv AT choiil distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT korolevichsusie distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT kimjoseph distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT kimhark distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT kimchang distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT munroedavidj distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
AT greenjeffreye distinctionsingastriccancergeneexpressionsignaturesderivedfromlasercapturemicrodissectionitversusithistologicmacrodissection
_version_ 1724172849180049408