Dataset Information

Transcription profiling by array of 178 human breast cancer biopsy samples vs normal breast reference total RNA (Clontech) to identify exons associated with higher risk of relapse

ABSTRACT: We profiled breast cancer samples with exon arrays (244K Agilent Human exon) in order to identify exons associated with higher risk of relapse. This set contain 178 single dual color of samples (biopsies) versus normal breast reference (Normal breast Clontech) , 5 dye-swap (10 hybridizations) and 5 self self for controls.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

SUBMITTER: Molina A

PROVIDER: S-ECPF-MTAB-1389 | biostudies-other | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the gene expression profile changes of DMBA-induced rat breast tumors from an initial stage to the moment of sacrifice. To this end, a cDNA microarray was performed (Affymetrix’s Rat Genome 230 2.0 array). This gene expression study was carried out on the umor biopsy samples and compared with matched tumor biopsy samples once the study ended (7 weeks after initial biopsy). Breast tumors were induced with a single oral dosage of 7,12-dimethylbenz(alpha)anthracene (100 mg/kg body weight) in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Gene expression analysis was performed in paired samples as follows: DMBA final trucut tumor vs initial trucut tumor (DMBA final vs basal). For this assay, 5 samples were chosen according to histopathologic criteria (Bloom-Richardson grade II). Gene expression profiling was carried out using Affymetrix’s GeneChip technology, using the Rat Genome 230 2.0 array from this provider. All the protocols and apparatus were recommended by Affymetrix. Total RNA from frozen mammary tumors was extracted by RNeasy Mini kit and homogenized by QIAshredder columns according to manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and quantity of the obtained RNA was checked out through agarose electrophoresis and later spectrophotometry at 260/280 nm. Biotinylated cRNA was synthesized following the IVT labeling kit from Affymetrix and purified by the GeneChip Sample Cleanup Module from Affymetrix. The quality and quantity of the obtained cRNA was again checked out through agarose electrophoresis and posterior spectrophotometry at 260/280 nm. After hybridization, slides were washed and scanned following the manufacturer’s standard protocol. Intensity values were normalized by Robust Multichip Average method and subsequently these were filtered to remove the control sequences and those with a hybridization signal close to background. The spike controls were: BioB, BioC, BioD and Cre; because BioB was the least abundant in the samples, it was used to estimate the sensitivity of the experiment. The housekeeping control was GAPDH. After non-supervised clustering using Pearson correlation coefficient, statistical significance of gene expression was estimated by Student’s T test for paired samples, using GeneSpring GX 7.3 software (Agilent).

Project description:Selection of lung cancer patients for therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors directed at EGFR requires the identification of specific EGFR mutations. In most patients with advanced, inoperable lung carcinoma limited tumor samples often represent the only material available for both histologic typing and molecular analysis. We defined a next generation sequencing protocol targeted to EGFR exons 18-21 suitable for the routine diagnosis of such clinical samples. The protocol was validated in an unselected series of 80 small biopsies (n=14) and cytology (n=66) specimens representative of the material ordinarily submitted for diagnostic evaluation to three referral medical centers in Italy. Specimens were systematically evaluated for tumor cell number and proportion relative to non-neoplastic cells. They were analyzed in batches of 100-150 amplicons per run, reaching an analytical sensitivity of 1% and obtaining an adequate number of reads, to cover all exons on all samples analyzed. Next generation sequencing was compared with Sanger sequencing. The latter identified 15 EGFR mutations in 14/80 cases (17.5%) but did not detected mutations when the proportion of neoplastic cells was below 40%. Next generation sequencing identified 31 EGFR mutations in 24/80 cases (30.0%). Mutations were detected with a proportion of neoplastic cells as low as 5%. All mutations identified by the Sanger method were confirmed. In 6 cases next generation sequencing identified exon 19 deletions or the L858R mutation not seen after Sanger sequencing, allowing the patient to be treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In one additional case the R831H mutation associated with treatment resistance was identified in an EGFR wild type tumor after Sanger sequencing. Next generation sequencing is robust, cost-effective and greatly improves the detection of EGFR mutations. Its use should be promoted for the clinical diagnosis of mutations in specimens with unfavorable tumor cell content.