4.6 Article

Comparison of gene expression patterns between avian and human ovarian cancers

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 120, 期 2, 页码 256-264

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.10.030

关键词

Avian; Ovarian cancer; Gene expresion; Animal model

资金

  1. Gynecologic Cancer Foundation (GCF)
  2. National Ovarian Cancer Coalition (NOCC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. A putative model of spontaneous cancer has been described in the laying hen that bears significant similarities to human ovarian cancer. Our objective was to characterize and compare the patterns of gene expression in chicken and human forms of this disease. Methods. RNA from 20 localized and metastatic ovarian and oviductal chicken tumor samples was isolated, amplified using in vitro transcription, and hybridized against normal ovarian epithelium to a customized cDNA microarray constructed for these studies. Differentially expressed genes were identified for localized ovarian, metastatic ovarian, and oviductal (or tubal) cancer by class comparison using BRB-ArrayTools. Results were validated with semi-quantitative PCR. A gene list (prediction model) constructed with the class prediction tool was used in a human ovarian cancer microarray obtained from the GEO datasets (GSE6008) in order to compare these results across species. Results. Class comparison analysis between localized ovarian, metastatic ovarian and oviductal cancer yielded 41 different informative probes that coded for 27 unique genes. Localized ovarian samples clustered between metastatic ovarian and oviductal cancer samples. Using our chicken data as a training set and leaving oviductal samples out of the analysis, we created a prediction model that classified early stage and advanced stage human ovarian cancer gene expression arrays with 78% overall accuracy. Conclusions. Gene expression of spontaneous ovarian cancer in the chicken is comparable to gene expression patterns of human ovarian cancer. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据