AIM： To study the role of CDH1/E-cadherin （E-cad） gene alteration profiles including mutation, loss of heterozygosity （LOH）, promoter polymorphism and hypermethylation in mechanisms of CDH1 inactivation in gastri...AIM： To study the role of CDH1/E-cadherin （E-cad） gene alteration profiles including mutation, loss of heterozygosity （LOH）, promoter polymorphism and hypermethylation in mechanisms of CDH1 inactivation in gastric carcinoma （GC）. METHODS： Specimens were collected surgically from 70 patients with GC. Allelotyping PCR and detection of LOH, denaturing high pressure liquid chromatography and DNA sequencing, restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, methylation specific PCR, and immunohistochemical staining were used. RESULTS： Promoter polymorphism was not a major mechanism of E-cad inactivation. Only one truncating mutation was found in a diffuse type tumor （3%）. Both LOH and promoter hypermethylation were major mechanisms of E-cad inactivation, but interestingly, there was a negative association between the fraction of allelic loss （LOH） in tumors and hypermethylation of CDH1. Therefore LOH and hypermethylation were two different tumorigenic pathways involved in GC. CONCLUSION： Given the findings that somatic mutation was extremely low and the relationship between LOH and hypermethylation was inverse, any two combinations of these three factors cannot fulfill the classical two-hit hypothesis of CDH1 inactivation. Thus, other mechanisms operating at the transcriptional level or at the post-translational level might be required to induce E-cadherin inactivation.展开更多
基金Supported by Clinical Research Fund of the Tri-Service General Hospital and C.Y.Fundation for Advancement of Education, Science and Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, China
文摘AIM： To study the role of CDH1/E-cadherin （E-cad） gene alteration profiles including mutation, loss of heterozygosity （LOH）, promoter polymorphism and hypermethylation in mechanisms of CDH1 inactivation in gastric carcinoma （GC）. METHODS： Specimens were collected surgically from 70 patients with GC. Allelotyping PCR and detection of LOH, denaturing high pressure liquid chromatography and DNA sequencing, restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis, methylation specific PCR, and immunohistochemical staining were used. RESULTS： Promoter polymorphism was not a major mechanism of E-cad inactivation. Only one truncating mutation was found in a diffuse type tumor （3%）. Both LOH and promoter hypermethylation were major mechanisms of E-cad inactivation, but interestingly, there was a negative association between the fraction of allelic loss （LOH） in tumors and hypermethylation of CDH1. Therefore LOH and hypermethylation were two different tumorigenic pathways involved in GC. CONCLUSION： Given the findings that somatic mutation was extremely low and the relationship between LOH and hypermethylation was inverse, any two combinations of these three factors cannot fulfill the classical two-hit hypothesis of CDH1 inactivation. Thus, other mechanisms operating at the transcriptional level or at the post-translational level might be required to induce E-cadherin inactivation.
