|
|
|
Published online before print
December 14, 2001, 10.1101/gr.202801
Vol. 12, Issue 1, 158-164, January 2002
METHODS
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Oligonucleotide microarray-based hybridization is an emerging
technology for genome-wide detection of DNA variations. We have extended this principle and developed a novel approach, called methylation-specific oligonucleotide (MSO) microarray, for detecting changes of DNA methylation in cancer. The method uses
bisulfite-modified DNA as a template for PCR amplification, resulting
in conversion of unmethylated cytosine, but not methylated cytosine,
into thymine within CpG islands of interest. The amplified product,
therefore, may contain a pool of DNA fragments with altered nucleotide
sequences due to differential methylation status. A test sample is
hybridized to a set of oligonucleotide (19-23 nucleotides in length)
arrays that discriminate methylated and unmethylated cytosine at
specific nucleotide positions, and quantitative differences in
hybridization are determined by fluorescence analysis. A unique control
system is also implemented to test the accuracy and reproducibility of oligonucleotides designed for microarray hybridization. This MSO microarray was applied to map methylated CpG sites within the human
estrogen receptor
(ER
) gene CpG island in
breast cancer cell lines, normal fibroblasts, breast tumors, and normal
controls. Methylation patterns of the breast cancer cell lines,
determined by MSO microarray, were further validated by bisulfite
nucleotide sequencing (P <0.001). This proof-of-principle
study shows that MSO microarray is a promising technique for mapping
methylation changes in multiple CpG island loci and for generating
epigenetic profiles in cancer.
[The sequence data described in this paper have been submitted to the data library under accession no. X03635.1 G1:31233.]
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It is now clear that abnormally methylated
cytosine within a CpG dinucleotide is a widespread phenomenon in cancer
(Jones and Laird 1999
). This epigenetic event has been observed in
GC-rich regions, called CpG islands, frequently located in the promoter and exon 1 regions of genes. As a result of CpG island
hypermethylation, chromatin structure in the promoter can be altered,
preventing normal interaction with the transcriptional machinery
(Baylin et al. 1998
). If this occurs in genes critical to growth
inhibition, the resulting silencing of transcription could promote
tumor progression. In addition to classic genetic mutations, promoter
CpG island hypermethylation has been shown to be a common mechanism for
transcriptional inactivation of classic tumor suppressor genes (Baylin
et al. 1998
; Jones and Laird 1999
) and genes important for cell cycle regulation (Costello et al. 1996
; Nguyen et al. 2000
), and DNA mismatch
repair (Kane et al. 1997
).
At present, several molecular biology methods are routinely used to
determine the methylation status of a CpG island. Among these,
bisulfite nucleotide sequencing is a standard technique for detailed
mapping of methylated cytosine residues within a gene promoter. This
meticulous method, developed by Frommer and colleagues (Frommer et al.
1992
), relies on the ability of sodium bisulfite to deaminate cytosine
residues into uracil in genomic DNA, whereas the methylated cytosine
residues are resistant to this modification. The target DNA is then
amplified by PCR with specific primers to yield fragments in which all
uracil residues are converted to thymine, whereas methylated cytosine
residues are amplified as cytosine. The PCR products are sequenced and the methylation status of individual CpG sites is then analyzed by
comparing it with the unmodified sequences of a given promoter. Using
this conventional method, many investigators have addressed the
importance of promoter CpG hypermethylation in the regulation of
specific gene transcription in cancer (Hiltunen et al. 1997
; Stirzaker
et al. 1997
; Rice et al. 1998
; Melki et al. 1999
). The method, which
requires cloning and sequencing of individual inserts, can be labor
intensive and is restricted to the evaluation of DNA methylation on a
gene-by-gene basis. Such an approach has given researchers a limited
picture of complex epigenetic alterations in cancer. Clearly, a
compelling need exists to develop novel technologies for the next phase
of epigenome research.
Recently, considerable advances have been made in hybridization-based
microarray technology for genome-wide analysis of gene mutations and
single nucleotide polymorphisms (Ahrendt et al. 1999
; Favis and Barany
2000
; Wen et al. 2000
). The technology uses thousands of short
oligonucleotides arrayed on glass slides for detection of all possible
nucleotide changes in target DNA. In this new approach,
oligonucleotides are arrayed on solid supports that are known as
probes, and the labeled complex DNA mixtures to be interrogated are
known as targets (Hacia 1999
).
In this study, we have built on this cutting-edge technology by
developing a novel technique called methylation-specific
oligonucleotide (MSO) microarray for DNA methylation analysis. The
targets were derived from PCR products of bisulfite-modified DNA,
whereas the probes used a series of arrayed oligonucleotides that can
discriminate between converted and unconverted nucleotides, that is,
unmethylated and methylated cytosine, at specific sites. Herein, we
describe the MSO procedure and its application for mapping methylated
CpG sites in the human estrogen receptor (ER)
gene CpG island in breast cancer cells, normal
fibroblasts, breast tumors, and normal control samples.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Figure 1 outlines the MSO strategy for DNA methylation analysis. Test DNA samples are bisulfite-modified, PCR-amplified products that contain pools of DNA fragments with altered nucleotide sequences due to their differential methylation status. As shown, the unmethylated allele of a given DNA sequence is expected to have the unmethylated cytosine of the test CpG sites converted to thymine, whereas these CpG sequences remain unchanged in the methylated allele. Target DNA is then hybridized to arrayed oligonucleotide probes specifically designed to discriminate between converted and unconverted nucleotides at these CpG sites.
|
We determined the feasibility of this MSO strategy by assessing the
methylation status of a CpG island located in the first exon of the
ER
gene (Fig. 2A). A group of
12 arrayed oligonucleotides (19-23 nucleotides in length) was designed
to test 15 CpG sites within the island; each set contained a pair of
methylated and unmethylated oligonucleotides for interrogating 2 to 4 CpG sites in close proximity (Fig. 2B). First, control DNA targets were used to test the accuracy and reproducibility of probes designed for
MSO hybridization. Both SssI methylase (SM)-treated and
untreated control samples were subjected to bisulfite treatment and a
255-bp fragment in the ER
CpG island region was PCR
amplified from these samples. The positive control generated in this
way had 100% unconverted cytosine in the test CpG sites, whereas the
negative control had all cytosine residues converted into thymine in
the amplified DNA. The completeness of the SM treatment was validated
by bisulfite DNA sequencing. Next, a series of MSO hybridization were
performed with mixtures of Cy5-labeled SM-treated and untreated DNA
targets at different proportions representing 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%,
and 100% of DNA methylation to test the linearity of the protocol. An
example of the MSO analysis for CpG#14,15 is shown in Figure
3A. The average intensity of hybridization
signals from the four replicate spots (the average variation of
replicates from all combinations of treated and untreated DNA target
hybridizations was ~15% of mean spot intensity) for the methylated
(M) and unmethylated (U) alleles was then derived and used to calculate
the intensity ratio of log M/log M+logU. In this case, a linear
relationship (R2 = 0.976) was established, showing that the
increase in DNA methylation was proportional to the increase in
intensity ratios in the control samples. The result suggested that this
set of oligonucleotide probes was optimal for the detection of
methylation changes at CpG#14,15. This approach was applied to test
other oligonucleotide probes and used to generate a set of standards
for the calibration of DNA methylation changes in the test samples
(Fig. 3B). We noticed that the regression line for CpG#11-13 reversed
intersects much higher on the Y-axis than the rest of the CpG sites.
This higher nonspecific hybridization is likely due to the lower
melting temperature of the unmethylated probe. An oligonucleotide
sequence such as this would result in the compression of the usable
scale and makes the assessment of methylation status a little more
challenging.
|
|
The MSO assay was applied to a panel of six breast cancer cell lines in
which the methylation status of ER
was known previously (Ottaviano et al. 1994
). Figure 4A shows
representative examples of MSO results. By use of the standard curves
derived from the aforementioned calibration controls, little or no
methylation was detected in T47D, ZR75, or MCF-7 cells (Fig.
5). Extensive methylation of the
ER
CpG island was observed in MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468
cells, whereas a modest degree of methylation was seen in Hs578t cells.
These MSO results were consistent with a previous methylation finding
by Southern blot analysis (Ottaviano et al. 1994
). This previous study
also showed that hypermethylation of the ER
CpG island was
associated with the silencing of this gene in these cell lines. To
further validate the MSO findings, bisulfite sequence analysis was
performed independently on MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 cells. Again, no
methylation was detected in MCF-7 cells, but extensive methylation was
seen in MDA-MB-231 cells by bisulfite sequencing. The quantitative
assessment of methylation in these two cell lines appears to be
consistent with the data obtained by use of the MSO assays
(P <0.001, assessed by linear regression analysis; Fig. 4B).
Note that only the positive result of DNA hypermethylation in
MDA-MB-231 cells is shown.
|
|
Interestingly, our MSO study showed variable methylation of the
ER
CpG island in a normal fibroblast strain HFF (Fig. 5). One possible explanation is that the expression of the ER
gene may be silenced in these male-derived cells via DNA
hypermethylation in vitro.
The MSO assay was extended to study four normal mammary tissue samples
and 15 primary breast tumors in which the methylation status of the
ER
CpG island was not known previously (Fig. 5). With the
exception of N32, the normal tissue DNA samples revealed little or no
methylation by this MSO assay. Between 26% and 50% of DNA methylation
was detected in most of the test CpG sites in N32. The initial
methylation finding of this normal breast tissue (patient's age, 60 years old) may need further investigation as methylation of the
ER
CpG island has commonly been seen in normal aging
colorectal epithelia (Issa et al. 1994
). Breast tumors showed an
overall increase of DNA hypermethylation in the test sites relative to
the normal controls. Five (T25, T119, T123, T97, and T137) of these
fifteen tumors exhibited more methylation in a few of the test CpG
sites. However, we did not observe a statistical correlation between
this hypermethylation event and the ER-negativity status in these
tumors. This could be attributed to the small number of breast tumors
analyzed in this study. Alternatively, ER negativity may not always be
associated with hypermethylation of the ER
CpG island in
clinical specimens (Lapidus et al. 1998
). To further validate the MSO
findings in primary breast tumors, methylation-specific PCR (MS-PCR)
was conducted in selected tumors and normal controls. One of the MSO
test sites, ER
CpG#7-11, was used for this confirmation. A
representation of the MS-PCR analysis was shown in Figure
6. By use of this approach, two normal breast tissues were found to be completely unmethylated (N46, N120),
whereas the other was found to be partially methylated (N66). Analysis
of the MS-PCR results on the 12 primary tumors showed that the
methylation status of nine tumors matched that of MSO results. The
remaining three MSO results could not be confirmed by MS-PCR (T135,
T83, and T129). These tumors all had 0% methylation according to MSO
analysis, but MS-PCR results showed a relatively faint band in the
lane containing products amplified with methylated primers and a more
prominent band in the lane containing products amplified with
unmethylated primers (see, as an example, T129, in Fig. 6). It is
conceivable that at very low levels of CpG island methylation, MS-PCR
can detect methylation that is obscured by background hybridization in
the MSO analysis.
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this study, we have described a novel technique that combines
bisulfite DNA assay and oligonucleotide microarray for a comprehensive
analysis of DNA methylation. This MSO microarray has been successfully
used to map methylated CpG sites within the ER
CpG island
in cultured cells and clinical samples. The derived methylation
information for cultured cells has been assessed quantitatively and
independently confirmed by bisulfite sequencing analysis.
Another alternative, also based on the principle of oligonucleotide microarray, can achieve a comprehensive analysis of DNA methylation. In this case, oligonucleotide probes are designed such that their 3' termini end just before interrogating CpG sites. These probes are arrayed on glass slides by attaching to the surface via their 5' ends. Unlabeled bisulfite-modified targets are prepared, essentially following the steps described in this study. After target-probe annealing, in situ polymerase reaction is performed to allow extension to only one base [either Cy5(red)-ddTTP or Cy3(green)-ddCTP] away from an oligonucleotide primer. The extended molecule is identified on the basis of the incorporation of different fluorescence dyes for either the converted or unconverted nucleotides, that is, unmethylated or methylated cytosine residues, at the interrogating CpG sites. Quantitative analysis of methylation is determined by two-color fluorescence analysis.
This microarray-based analysis of DNA methylation is expected to provide new tools for research in this field. Until recently, most methylation assays have been limited to analyzing CpG islands of a few known genes and are restricted in throughput for a genome-wide analysis. In this regard, the MSO microarray potentially allows rapid screening of multiple CpG sites in many gene promoters. As of today, CpG island hypermethylation has been reported to be linked to the silencing of >100 genes in many types of cancers (see our web site: http://www.missouri.edu/~hypermet). A DNA chip can be generated, containing hundreds of oligonucleotides designed to discriminate between methylated and unmethylated sequences in these gene promoters. Bisulfite-treated DNA from each of these loci can be amplified from test samples in a 96-well format to generate multiple targets for oligonucleotide hybridization. A gradient PCR approach will be used to allow the use of different primers with a wider spectrum of melting temperatures (Tm's). PCR products will be reamplified with nested primers and verified by use of a 96-well gel electrophoresis system. To further streamline processing of multiple DNA samples, a liquid handling system will be used to aliquot primers and DNA samples to the 96-well plates, and a robotic PCR system can facilitate the purification of Cy dye-labeled targets. This approach allows rapid dissection of complex epigenetic alterations during tumor progression.
As with other oligonucleotide microarrays, cross-hybridization between
imperfect-match probes and targets was observed in our initial study
using the MSO assay. To overcome this, we have found that selecting the
optimal sequence composition for each oligonucleotide probe is critical
in the assay. The specificity of a probe drops greatly when it contains
more than four consecutive T or G residues. In addition, some probes
may have inherently diminished hybridization signals, probably due to
decreased duplex stability of targets and probes (Hacia 1999
). Through
careful data analysis, we have noticed that cross-reactivity might also increase when oligonucleotide probes are designed to query methylation differences in one single CpG site. This issue is easily overcome by
designing probes to include two or more CpG sites. This design consideration may limit our ability to detect methylation changes in
single CpG sites. Nonetheless, it is usually not necessary to assess
the overall methylation status of a given CpG island by analyzing every
CpG site within the locus. Also shown in this study is the use of a
unique control system allowing testing the accuracy and reproducibility
of the probes designed for microarray hybridization. This unique
control system can also be used to calibrate the levels of methylation
changes detected in the test samples by MSO. In some scenarios, when
the background hybridization signals obscure the ability of MSO to
detect low levels of methylation in test samples, this difficulty can
be overcome by adjusting the stringency of the hybridization conditions
and slide-washing conditions. Taken together, these implementations
greatly alleviate common problems encountered in oligonucleotide hybridization.
In conclusion, the present technique can be readily reconfigured for high-throughput analysis of DNA methylation. It will contribute significant information to our understanding of CpG island methylation in cancer. It is also our hope that this microarray technique will allow researchers to study the effect of demethylating agents on the methylation status of critical genes, thereby assessing their usefulness in chemotherapy regimens.
| |
METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cell Lines
Breast cancer cell lines MCF-7, T47D, ZR75, MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468,
Hs578t, and human foreskin fibroblast strain HFF used in this study
were routinely maintained in our laboratory as described (Laux et al.
1999
). Fifteen breast tumors and four normal control samples from
patients undergoing mastectomy at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center were
used as clinical specimens for this study. Specimen collection was
approved by our Institutional Review Board. Genomic DNA was prepared
from these cells using a QIAamp DNA mini kit (QIAGEN). For the
preparation of control DNA targets, a blood DNA sample was treated with
M. SssI methyltransferase (New England Biolabs) that
methylates cytosine residues within all CpG dinucleotides in vitro.
Bisulfite Nucleotide Sequencing
Bisulfite modification of DNA samples was performed using the
CpGenome DNA modification kit (Intergen). The modified DNA was used
immediately or stored at
20°C for further analyses. Nested PCR was
used to amplify a region within the ER
CpG island
(nucleotides 267-640; GenBank accession no. X03635.1
G1:31233). Amplification conditions were similar to
those described previously (Pieper et al. 1999
), except that
a gradient PCR approach was used. The following outer ER primers were
used for the first round: 5'-ATGGTTTTATTG TATTAGATTTAAGGGAAT (ER
primer1, nucleotides 267-296) and
5'-TATAACICTAAACTCITTCTCCAAATAATA (ER primer 2, nucleotides 611-640, I, inosine), and the following inner ER
primers were used for the second round: 5'-AGTGTATTT GGATAGTAGTAAG
(ER primer3, nucleotides 355-376). 5'-CTAACCITAAAACTACAAAAAAAA (ER primer4, nucelotides 587-610). Amplification conditions were as
follows: 95°C for 10 min; followed by 35 cycles of 92°C for 1 min,
a 0.3°C/sec ramp to 56°C for 3 min, a 0.5°C/sec ramp to 72°C,
72°C for 1 min, and ended with an extension of 72°C for 5 min and
quick chill to 4°C on a PTC-100 thermocycler (MJ Research). One
percent of the first-round PCR products was used for a second round of
amplification under the conditions described above. PCR products were
cloned using the TOPO TA cloning kit according to the manufacturer's
instructions (Invitrogen). Part of the same PCR product was
fluorescently labeled later for MSO microarray analysis. Plasmid DNA
from 10 positive recombinant clones was isolated, and inserts were
sequenced on an ABI PRISM 377 sequencer. The percentage of methylation
levels in individual CpG sites was determined by dividing the total
number of methylated sites at that locus with the number of clones
analyzed and multiplying by 100.
MSO Microarray
Six sets of paired oligonucleotides (19-23 nucleotides in length)
were designed to include two to four CpG sites of the ER
CpG island to be interrogated (Fig. 2B). These oligonucleotides were
specific to the bisulfite-modified sequence of a portion of the
ER
CpG island. Each was synthesized with an amino-linked C6
[NH2 (CH2)6] linker attached to its 5'
end (IDT). The oligonucleotides were suspended in 1× microspotting
solution (Telechem) to a final concentration of 50 pmole/µL.
Approximately 1 nL (0.05-0.1 pmole) of each oligonucleotide was
printed in quadruplicate as microdots (100 µm diameter) on the
superaldehyde-coated glass slides (Telechem) using a GMS 417 microarrayer (Affymetrix). The slides were washed thoroughly to remove
unbound oligonucleotides following the manufacturer's protocol
(Telechem) and were ready for hybridization. For target labeling, PCR
products of bisulfite-treated DNA were labeled at the 3' terminus with
Cy5-dCTP (Amersham Pharmacia) by terminal transferase (New England
Biolabs). The unincorporated dCTP was removed by passing the labeled
target through a micro-Biospin column (Bio-Rad). The labeled product (2 µL per cm2 of glass slides with ~4 pmole/µL of Cy5
incorporation) was resuspended in Unihybridization solution (1:4
dilution v/v; Telechem), denatured at 95°C for 5 min, and
subsequently applied to a glass slide. The MSO hybridization was
conducted in a moist hybridization chamber under a cover slip at 45°C
for 4 h. The slide was rinsed and washed twice at room temperature with
2× SSC-0.2% SDS for a total of 15 min, followed by washing twice with
2× SSC at room temperature for 5 min, and dried by centrifugation at
500 rpm for 5 min.
Image Scanning and Data Processing
The MSO microarray slide was scanned with a GenePix 4000A scanner (Axon Instruments) at ~600 PMT, a laser setting that preserves linearity and minimizes background. The images acquired by the scanner were analyzed with the software GenePix Pro 3.0. Each spot was defined by the positioning of a grid of circles over the array image. For each fluorescent image, the average pixel intensity within each circle was determined and a local background using mean pixel intensity was computed for each spot. Net signal was determined by subtraction of this local background from the mean average intensity for each spot. The data generated by the software was exported in a spreadsheet format and processed using Microsoft Excel. Statistical analyses were conducted using SigmaStat 2.0 software (Jandel Scientific).
MS-PCR
A portion of the patient tumor and normal bisulfide-treated DNA
from the bisulfide nucleotide sequencing experiment was used as
templates for MS-PCR. The following PCR primers were designed for the
amplification of methylated or unmethylated DNA: methylated DNA
ER
CpG#7-11 forward primer (nucleotides +31 to +55),
5'-TTTACGAGTTTAACGTC GCGGTCGT-3'; reverse primer (nucleotides +159 to
+131), 5'-CTATTAAATAAAAAAAAACCCCCCAAACC-3'; unmethylated forward primer
(nucleotides +25 to +55), 5'-GTTGTTT ATGAGTTTAATGTTGTGGTTGTT-3';
reverse primer (nucleotides +159 to +131),
5'-CTATTAAATAAAAAAAAACCCCCCA AACC-3'. PCR amplification were
performed as follows: 95°C for 10 min; followed by 35 cycles of
94°C for 1 min, 63°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 90 sec, and ended with an extension of 72°C for 5 min and quick chill to 4°C on a
PTC-100 thermocycler (MJ Research). Products amplified with both types
of primers were examined on 1% agarose gel.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grants CA-69065 and -84701 and by U.S. Army Medical Research Command grant DAMD17-98-1-8214.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Corresponding author.
E-MAIL huangh{at}health.missouri.edu; FAX (573) 884-5206.
Article published on-line before print in December 2001: Genome Res., 10.1101/gr. 202801.
Article and publication are at http://www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.202801.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Received June 28, 2001; accepted in revised form September 20, 2001.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. Bock, J. Walter, M. Paulsen, and T. Lengauer Inter-individual variation of DNA methylation and its implications for large-scale epigenome mapping Nucleic Acids Res., June 1, 2008; 36(10): e55 - e55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. A. Irizarry, C. Ladd-Acosta, B. Carvalho, H. Wu, S. A. Brandenburg, J. A. Jeddeloh, B. Wen, and A. P. Feinberg Comprehensive high-throughput arrays for relative methylation (CHARM) Genome Res., May 1, 2008; 18(5): 780 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Reinders, C. Delucinge Vivier, G. Theiler, D. Chollet, P. Descombes, and J. Paszkowski Genome-wide, high-resolution DNA methylation profiling using bisulfite-mediated cytosine conversion Genome Res., March 1, 2008; 18(3): 469 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Bonanno, E. Shehi, D. Adlerstein, and G. M. Makrigiorgos MS-FLAG, a Novel Real-Time Signal Generation Method for Methylation-Specific PCR Clin. Chem., December 1, 2007; 53(12): 2119 - 2127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Model, N. Osborn, D. Ahlquist, R. Gruetzmann, B. Molnar, F. Sipos, O. Galamb, C. Pilarsky, H.-D. Saeger, Z. Tulassay, et al. Identification and Validation of Colorectal Neoplasia-Specific Methylation Markers for Accurate Classification of Disease Mol. Cancer Res., February 1, 2007; 5(2): 153 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.M. Ordway, J.A. Bedell, R.W. Citek, A. Nunberg, A. Garrido, R. Kendall, J.R. Stevens, D. Cao, R.W. Doerge, Y. Korshunova, et al. Comprehensive DNA methylation profiling in a human cancer genome identifies novel epigenetic targets Carcinogenesis, December 1, 2006; 27(12): 2409 - 2423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. S. Yan, C. Venkataramu, A. Ibrahim, J. C. Liu, R. Z. Shen, N. M. Diaz, B. Centeno, F. Weber, Y.-W. Leu, C. L. Shapiro, et al. Mapping Geographic Zones of Cancer Risk with Epigenetic Biomarkers in Normal Breast Tissue. Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 12(22): 6626 - 6636. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. A. Bejjani and L. G. Shaffer Application of Array-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization to Clinical Diagnostics J. Mol. Diagn., November 1, 2006; 8(5): 528 - 533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y.-W. Cheng, C. Shawber, D. Notterman, P. Paty, and F. Barany Multiplexed profiling of candidate genes for CpG island methylation status using a flexible PCR/LDR/Universal Array assay Genome Res., February 1, 2006; 16(2): 282 - 289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Schumacher, P. Kapranov, Z. Kaminsky, J. Flanagan, A. Assadzadeh, P. Yau, C. Virtanen, N. Winegarden, J. Cheng, T. Gingeras, et al. Microarray-based DNA methylation profiling: technology and applications Nucleic Acids Res., January 20, 2006; 34(2): 528 - 542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. O. H. Nygren, N. Ameziane, H. M. B. Duarte, R. N. C. P. Vijzelaar, Q. Waisfisz, C. J. Hess, J. P. Schouten, and A. Errami Methylation-Specific MLPA (MS-MLPA): simultaneous detection of CpG methylation and copy number changes of up to 40 sequences Nucleic Acids Res., August 16, 2005; 33(14): e128 - e128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Mund, V. Beier, P. Bewerunge, M. Dahms, F. Lyko, and J. D. Hoheisel Array-based analysis of genomic DNA methylation patterns of the tumour suppressor gene p16INK4A promoter in colon carcinoma cell lines Nucleic Acids Res., April 28, 2005; 33(8): e73 - e73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Murrell, V. K. Rakyan, and S. Beck From genome to epigenome Hum. Mol. Genet., April 15, 2005; 14(suppl_1): R3 - R10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. H.C. Wong, I. I. Gottesman, and A. Petronis Phenotypic differences in genetically identical organisms: the epigenetic perspective Hum. Mol. Genet., April 15, 2005; 14(suppl_1): R11 - R18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. P. Yu, S. Paranjpe, J. Nelson, S. Finkelstein, B. Ren, D. Kokkinakis, G. Michalopoulos, and J.-H. Luo High throughput screening of methylation status of genes in prostate cancer using an oligonucleotide methylation array Carcinogenesis, February 1, 2005; 26(2): 471 - 479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Gáb. E. Tusnády, I.án Simon, A.ás Váradi, and T.ás Arányi BiSearch: primer-design and search tool for PCR on bisulfite-treated genomes Nucleic Acids Res., January 13, 2005; 33(1): e9 - e9. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. P. Carter and D. Vetrie Applications of genomic microarrays to explore human chromosome structure and function Hum. Mol. Genet., October 1, 2004; 13(suppl_2): R297 - R302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Matsuyama, M. T. Kimura, K. Koike, T. Abe, T. Nakano, T. Asami, T. Ebisuzaki, W. A. Held, S. Yoshida, and H. Nagase Global methylation screening in the Arabidopsis thaliana and Mus musculus genome: applications of virtual image restriction landmark genomic scanning (Vi-RLGS) Nucleic Acids Res., August 1, 2003; 31(15): 4490 - 4496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Tost, P. Schatz, M. Schuster, K. Berlin, and I. G. Gut Analysis and accurate quantification of CpG methylation by MALDI mass spectrometry Nucleic Acids Res., May 1, 2003; 31(9): e50 - e50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. K. JAIN Epigenetics: The Role of Methylation in the Mechanism of Action of Tumor Suppressor Genes Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., March 1, 2003; 983(1): 71 - 83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. VERMA, B. K. DUNN, S. ROSS, P. JAIN, W. WANG, R. HAYES, and A. UMAR Early Detection and Risk Assessment Proceedings and Recommendations from the Workshop on Epigenetics in Cancer Prevention Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., March 1, 2003; 983(1): 298 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. F. Paz, M. F. Fraga, S. Avila, M. Guo, M. Pollan, J. G. Herman, and M. Esteller A Systematic Profile of DNA Methylation in Human Cancer Cell Lines Cancer Res., March 1, 2003; 63(5): 1114 - 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S M Singh, B Murphy, and R O'Reilly Monozygotic twins with chromosome 22q11 deletion and discordant phenotypes: updates with an epigenetic hypothesis J. Med. Genet., November 1, 2002; 39(11): e71 - 71. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. M. Ordway and T. Curran Methylation Matters: Modeling a Manageable Genome Cell Growth Differ., April 1, 2002; 13(4): 149 - 162. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||