Skip NavigationSkip to Content

Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection versus histologic macrodissection

  1. Author:
    Kim, H. K.
    Kim, J.
    Korolevich, S.
    Choi, I. J.
    Kim, C. H.
    Munroe, D. J.
    Green, J. E.
  2. Author Address

    [Kim, HK; Kim, J; Green, JE] NCI, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA [Kim, HK; Choi, IJ] Natl Canc Ctr, Goyang 410769, Gyeonggi, South Korea [Korolevich, S; Kim, CH; Munroe, DJ] NCI, SAIC Frederick Inc, Frederick, MD 21701 USA;Green, JE (reprint author), NCI, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA;jegreen@nih.gov
    1. Year: 2011
    2. Date: Jun
  1. Journal: Bmc Medical Genomics
    1. 4
    2. Pages: 11
  2. Type of Article: Article
  3. Article Number: 48
  4. ISSN: 1755-8794
  1. Abstract:

    Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Genes shown to have increased copy number in gastric cancer were also found to be overexpressed in samples obtained by macrodissection (LS P value < 10(-5)), 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 P < 10(-5)), but not in the signature identified by microdissection (LS P = 0.013). In contrast, 66 genes previously reported to be underexpressed in gastric cancer were enriched in the gene signature identified by microdissection (LS P < 10(-5)), but not in the signature identified by macrodissection (LS P = 0.89). Conclusions: 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.

    See More

External Sources

  1. DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-4-48
  2. WOS: 000293009500001

Library Notes

  1. Fiscal Year: FY2010-2011
NCI at Frederick

You are leaving a government website.

This external link provides additional information that is consistent with the intended purpose of this site. The government cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal site.

Linking to a non-federal site does not constitute an endorsement by this institution or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the site. You will be subject to the destination site's privacy policy when you follow the link.

ContinueCancel