Dataset Information

Gene expression profiling of CEBPA double-, single-mutant and CEBPA wild type AML

ABSTRACT: A previously predictive CEBPA double mutant (CEBPAdm) signature was hampered by the recently reported CEBPA silenced AML cases that carry a similar gene expression profile (GEP). Two independent AML cohorts were used to train and evaluate the predictive value of the CEBPAdm signature in terms of sensitivity and specificity. A predictive signature was created, containing 25-probe sets by using a logistic regression model with Lasso regularization, which selects discriminative probe sets between the classes, CEBPAdm and all other AML cases, CEBPA wild type (CEBPAwt) and CEBPA single mutant (CEBPAsm). Subsequently, a classifier was trained on the entire HOVON-SAKK cohort based on a two-class approach; CEBPAdm versus all other cases (CEBPAwt and CEBPAsm). This trained classifier subsequently classified 16 candidate CEBPAdm cases in the AMLSG-cohort out of 154 AML cases. This approach showed perfect sensitivity and specificity (both 100%). In addition, we have performed a classification between CEBPAdm ,CEBPAsm, and CEBPAwt to infer if we were able to accurately classify CEBPAsm cases. We observed that all CEBPAsm cases were classified as CEBPAwt, thus CEBPAsm cases do not have a consistent gene expression pattern and are different from the CEBPAdm group.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

PROVIDER: GSE22845 | GEO | 2011/08/04

SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PRJNA128053

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:By WHO 2008, CEBPA-mutated AML became a provisional subentity, but it remains to be clarified how CEBPAmut AML with multilineage dysplasia (MLD; ?50% dysplastic cells in 2-3 lineages) but no other MDS-related feature should be classified. We investigated 108 CEBPAmut AML (15.7-87.6 years) for the impact of MLD and genetic features. MLD-positive patients differed from MLD-negative only by lower mean WBC counts (p=0.004), but not by other blood values, biologic characteristics, cytogenetic risk profiles, or additional molecular markers (NPM1mut, FLT3-ITD/TKD, RUNX1, MLL-PTD, IDH1/2). Biallelic CEBPAmut differed from wild-type-cases by differential expression of 213 genes, but did not differ significantly between MLD-positive/-negative patients. Survival outcomes were improved for females and those <60 years, intermediate versus adverse karyotypes (p=0.021), and for biallelic versus monoallelic/homozygous CEBPAmut (p=0.060) in case of FLT3-ITD-negativity. In contrast, 2-year OS (MLD+: 56.5%; MLD-: 65.5%) and 2-year EFS (MLD+: 13.8 months; MLD-: 16.3 months) did not differ significantly between MLD-positive/-negative patients. By univariable Cox regression analysis, gender, age, WBC count and MRC-cytogenetic risk category only were prognostically relevant for OS, while MLD was irrelevant. Therefore, CEBPAmut AML patients should be characterized only according to mut-status, cytogenetic risk groups, or additional mutations, whereas dysplasia is not relevant for this subtype. The sample preparation assay for gene expression profiling using Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 microarrays and subsequent data analysis were previously described. Only cases with biallelic CEBPA mutations were investigated by gene expression profiling due to previous reports that only double mutated cases conferred a specific gene expression signature, while monoallelic cases could not be discriminated from CEBPA wild-type cases. We performed comparison of gene expression profiles of 20 cases with biallelic CEBPA mutations and of 10 cases without CEBPA mutations.

Dataset Information

Gene expression profiling of CEBPA double-, single-mutant and CEBPA wild type AML

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure