4.7 Article

Transcriptome meta-analysis reveals common differential and global gene expression profiles in cystic fibrosis and other respiratory disorders and identifies CFTR regulators

Journal

GENOMICS
Volume 106, Issue 5, Pages 268-277

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2015.07.005

Keywords

Cystic fibrosis; respiratory disease; differentiation, transcriptome; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. FCT/MCTES/PIDDAC (Portugal) [PTDC/SAU-GMG/122299/2010, UID/MULTI/04046/2013, PEstOE/MAT/UI0006/2011]
  2. FCT/MCTES (Portugal) [SFRH/BPD/93017/2013]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/SAU-GMG/122299/2010] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A meta-analysis of 13 independent microarray data sets was performed and gene expression profiles from cystic fibrosis (CF), similar disorders (COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, IPF: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asthma), environmental conditions (smoking, epithelial injury), related cellular processes (epithelial differentiation/regeneration), and non-respiratory control conditions (schizophrenia, dieting), were compared. Similarity among differentially expressed (DE) gene lists was assessed using a permutation test, and a clustergram was constructed, identifying common gene markers. Global gene expression values were standardized using a novel approach, revealing that similarities between independent data sets run deeper than shared DE genes. Correlation of gene expression values identified putative gene regulators of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, of potential therapeutic significance. Our study provides a novel perspective on CF epithelial gene expression in the context of other lung disorders and conditions, and highlights the contribution of differentiation/EMT and injury to gene signatures of respiratory disease. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available