1 / 42

급성백혈병에서의 Gene Expression Profiling

급성백혈병에서의 Gene Expression Profiling. 포천중문의대 분당차병원 혈액종양내과 정 소 영. Backgroud. Many stages of normal hematopoietic differentiation -> many biologically and clinically distinct cancers Acquired genetic alterations - chromosome translocations - mutations - deletions

ethelynr
Download Presentation

급성백혈병에서의 Gene Expression Profiling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 급성백혈병에서의 Gene Expression Profiling 포천중문의대 분당차병원 혈액종양내과 정 소 영

  2. Backgroud • Many stages of normal hematopoietic differentiation -> many biologically and clinically distinct cancers • Acquired genetic alterations - chromosome translocations - mutations - deletions • Alterations of gene - activation of critical pathways - changes expression of other genes

  3. Backgroud • Diagnosis of Leukemia - Morphology - Chromosome - Cell marker - Molecular markers: limited No. • Markedly heterogeneous Response to Tx in some diagnostic categories -> Molecularly distinct disease w/i the same category

  4. Gene Expression Profiling • Abundance of mRNA of each gene - Cell lineage - Stage of differentiation - Activity of intracellular regulatory pathways - Influence of the extracellular stimuli • Gene expression: major determinant of biology of normal or cancer cells

  5. Gene Expression Profiling • Gene expression profiling • Microarray chip: cDNA chip, oligonucleotide chip robotically printed probes on solid surfaces - Relatively small No. of sample Large No. of mRNAs at a time - Effective method to study diversities

  6. Microarray processing sequence

  7. Analytical technique Unsupervised analysis • Using pattern-recognition algorithm - Clustering or class discovery according to similar gene expression patterns - Hierarchial clustering -> dendrogram(tree view) • Descovery of subgroups of tumors

  8. Supervised analysis - Correlation with clinical data(survival..) - Identify genes w/ patterns of expression that predict the clincal outcome - Class prediction : distinction between known phenotype.. Gene A Gene B Tumor biopsy specimen

  9. Statistical significance Validation of results - Essential - Separate sample set - Sample-> training set & validation set training set -> classifier -> validation set - Validation using independent sample set - Accuracy

  10. Chromosomal abnormalites Most important prognostic factor Intensive consolidation or HSCT according to cytogenetic risk groups Substantial heterogeneity within these risk groups Intermediate risk group (normal karyotype) 1/2 of patients Various treatment response, prognosis GEP in Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

  11. Other genetic abnomalities - tyrosine kinase: FLT3, c-KIT, N-RAS - transcription factor: AML1, GATA1, CEBPA, EVI1 - FLT3 ITD: MC. molecular abnormality in AML - FLT3, MLL mutation, EVI1 overexpression: poor Px Need for refined AML classification More accurate prognostic marker GEP in AML

  12. GEP in AML Valk PJM et al. N Engl J Med, 2004 • 285 primary AML pts, PB or BM • Oligonucleotide array (Affymetrix U133A GeneChip) 13,000 genes • Biotin- labeled cDNA • Data analysis: significance analysis prediction analysis software • To identify establised or novel subclasses of AML • To determine prognostic significance of clusters

  13. Pearson’s correlation view Red: positive pairwise correlation Blue: negative pairwise correlation

  14. FLT3 TKD FAB Karyotype FLT3 ITD N-RAS K-RAS EVI1 Cluster No. CEBPA Adapted correlation view Adapted correlation view

  15. Level of expression of top 40 genes that characterized each clusters Sp. w/ normal Karyotype(%) Sp. w/ the Abn.(%) Cluster No. MC Abn. Genes   Patients with AML CD34+ NBM

  16. Valk PJM et al, N Engl J Med, 2004 • Unsupervised cluster analysis 16 clusters • Clustering was driven by • Chromosomal lesion • Particular genetic mutations (CEBPA) • Abnormal oncogene expression (EVI1) • Several novel clusters, nSome consisting of normal karyotype

  17. t(8;21) t(8;21) Inv(16) Inv(16) t(15;17) t(15;17) M4,5 M4,5 EVI1 EVI1 Survival rate of 5 most common unsupervised clusters Valk et al, N Engl J Med, 2004

  18. Valk PJM et al, N Engl J Med, 2004 Conclusion: • GEP allows a comprehensive classification of AML • that includes previously genetically defined subgroups • and a novel cluster with an adverse prognosis Prognostically useful GEP in AML

  19. GEP in AML Bullinger et al. N Engl J Med, 2004 • 116 AML pts, PB or BM • Cytogenetics, FISH, analysis of FLT3, MLL • cDNA microarray (26,260 genes) • Cy5- AML sample, Cy-3 reference sample • To identify molecular subgroups • To devise a gene-expression based clinical outcome predictor

  20. Unsupervised clustering Bullinger, N Engl J Med, 2004

  21. Distribution of prognostically relevant clinical & molecular genetic variables Male >60 ≥100,000 LDH >400 secondary FAB FLT3 mut. MLL PTD Bullinger, N Engl J Med, 2004

  22. Group I, II; Similar clinical variables Group I: more FLT3 mutation (p=0.005) more M1, M2 Group II: more M4, M5 (p=0.013) Normal karyotype

  23. Biologic insights

  24. Outcome prediction 133 gene clinical outcome predictor

  25. Normal karyotype AML 2 groups based on GEP Different outcomes Unequal distribution of FLT3 mutation & FAB subtype • t(8;21), inv(16) Separate into different subgroups  Cooperative mutations and dysregulation • Homeobox-gene dysregulation across diverse cytogenetic groups  coregulated pathway with pathogenetic relevance • GEP -> improve mol. Classification & outcome prediction

  26. GEP in ALL Yeoh et al, Cancer cell, 2002 • 360 childhood ALL • Unsupervised clustering -> 6 known clinical subtypes - T-cell ALL, E2A-PBX1, BCR-ABL - TEL-AML1, MLL rearrangement - Hyperdiploid ( > 50 chromosome) -> Novel subgroup • Significantly different GEP • Robust classifier w/ 95% accuracy • Predict relapse w/i certain subgroups

  27. GEP can group virtually all cases of T-ALL

  28. GEP in ALL Ferrando, Cancer cell, 2002 T-cell ALL • HOX11 overexpression cases - w/ or w/o Chromosomal translocation - Common gene-expression signature - Biological similarity • HOX11(+) T-ALL - Good prognosis w/ or w/o Ch’ translocation • GEP is more useful than karyotyping

  29. GEP in ALL Willenbrock et al, leukemia, 2004 Prediction of immunophenotype, Tx respons, and relapse • 45 childhood ALL, 8763 genes • Aim: prediction of relapse & classification of subtypes • GEP at diagnosis - Prediction of relapse (78% classification accuracy, 87% sen. 60 spec.) - Precursor-B ALL: Prediction of level of MRD at D29 high( > 0.1%) or low( < 0.01%) (100% accuracy)

  30. GEP in ALL Teuffel et al, haematologica, 2004 GEP and risk stratification in childhood ALL • GEP at diagnosis • 31 ALL BM • GEP –current risk assessment (cytogenetics, in vivo initial response) • Oligonucleotide microarray • Screening for risk group associated genes - 106 discriminating probe sets

  31. Ribosomal protein Cyclin H LRDD/Pidd

  32. Risk group prediction by selected signature genes

  33. GEP in ALL, Drug resistance Prognosis of ALL • MDR, cell cycle, DNA repair, drug metabolism, apoptosis gene • Chemosensitivity & role of these genes ? Holleman et al, N Engl J Med, 2004 • 173 childhood ALL blasts • In vitro sensitivity test: PD, VCR, Asp, DNR • GEP with 14,500 probe set • GEP according to drug sensitivity or resistance • Combined drug-resistance gene-expression score

  34. Holleman, N Engl J Med, 2004

  35. Supervised hierarchial clustering Sample PD VCR Gene

  36. Supervised hierarchial clustering Sample ASP DNR Gene

  37. DFS according to combined drug-resistance gene-expression score Validation group Study group Holleman, N Engl J Med, 2004

  38. Use of GEP in Acute Leukemia

  39. Problems of Microarray Technique

  40. Application in clinical diagnostics

More Related