Journal
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 215, Issue 4, Pages 351-354Publisher
JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/path.2379
Keywords
clonality; neoplasia; somatic mutation; Humara; X inactivation; methylation; microsatellite; patch size; mutation
Funding
- Medical Research Council [G84/6549] Funding Source: researchfish
- Medical Research Council [G84/6549] Funding Source: Medline
- MRC [G84/6549] Funding Source: UKRI
Ask authors/readers for more resources
One of the premises of the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis is that tumours are clonal lesions derived from a single mutated stem cell progenitor. This theory spawned a proliferation of clonality studies, using a variety of different molecular markers to try, to determine tumour clonality in multiple organs. In order to establish true clonality, it is necessary to identify the original founding mutation that occurred at the initiation of the progenitor clone. Use of other lesions may only serve to identify sub-clones. As founding mutations have not been properly established in many organ systems, human clonality assessments carry this caveat. However it is only through clonality and mutation burden assessments that phylogenetic tress become established. Here, we review the advantages, disadvantages and use of different clonality markers. Copyright (c) 2008 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available