Unknown,Transcriptomics,Genomics,Proteomics

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. All samples were obtained from untreated patients at the time of diagnosis. Cells used for microarray analysis were collected from the purified fraction of mononuclear cells after Ficoll density centrifugation. Routine diagnostic algorithms, including the characterization of molecular markers are performed.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

SUBMITTER: Erdogan Taskesen

PROVIDER: E-GEOD-22845 | biostudies-arrayexpress |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-arrayexpress

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic impact, concurrent genetic mutations, and gene expression features of AML with CEBPA mutations in a cohort of 1182 cytogenetically normal AML patients: further evidence for CEBPA double mutant AML as a distinctive disease entity.

Taskesen Erdogan E Bullinger Lars L Corbacioglu Andrea A Sanders Mathijs A MA Erpelinck Claudia A J CA Wouters Bas J BJ van der Poel-van de Luytgaarde Sonja C SC Damm Frederik F Krauter Jürgen J Ganser Arnold A Schlenk Richard F RF Löwenberg Bob B Delwel Ruud R Döhner Hartmut H Valk Peter J M PJ Döhner Konstanze K

Blood 20101221 8

We evaluated concurrent gene mutations, clinical outcome, and gene expression signatures of CCAAT/enhancer binding protein alpha (CEBPA) double mutations (CEBPA(dm)) versus single mutations (CEBPA(sm)) in 1182 cytogenetically normal acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients (16-60 years of age). We identified 151 (12.8%) patients with CEBPA mutations (91 CEBPA(dm) and 60 CEBPA(sm)). The incidence of germline mutations was 7% (5 of 71), including 3 C-terminal mutations. CEBPA(dm) patients had a lower ...[more]

PMID: 21177436

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.

Project description:The clinical impact of aberrant CEBPA promoter methylation (PM) in AML is controversial discussed. The aim of this study was to clarify the significance of aberrant CEBPA PM with regard to clinical features in a cohort of 572 de novo AML with wildtype CEBPA and normal karyotype. The distal promoter was methylated in 54/572 cases (9.41%) whereas proximal PM was never detected. Methylation of the core promoter was detected in only 8 of 326 cases (2.45%) and thus seems to be a rare event in AML. There was no correlation between CEBPA distal PM, age, sex, white blood cell (WBC) count or Hb levels at diagnosis. We also were not able to detect a significant correlation between the presence of CEBPA distal PM and molecular mutations such as FLT3-ITD, NPM1, AML1, MLL-PTD and IDH1. Solely the frequency of IDH2R140 mutations was significantly reduced in CEBPA distal PM positive compared to CEBPA distal PM negative cases (p=0.01). Furthermore, analysis of CEBPA mRNA expression level revealed no difference between CEBPA distal PM positive and CEBPA distal PM negative cases, suggesting that CEBPA distal PM has no influence on CEBPA expression. CEBPA distal PM did not show impact on overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS) or incidence of relapse. Also when other mutations were taken into regard no prognostic impact of CEBPA distal PM could be shown. In contrast, a distinct expression profile of CEBPA distal PM positive cases compared to CEBPA mutated and CEBPA distal PM negative cases was observed. In addition, a significantly higher frequency of CEBPA distal PM was detected in RUNX1-RUNX1T1 positive AML compared to the CEBPA witdtype cases. We conclude that the presence of aberrant CEBPA PM has no clinical relevance and is therefore a negligible prognostic marker in de novo AML with normal karyotype. To detect underlying common differences in their gene expression profiles, we investigated 9 CEBPA methylated (unmutated), 8 CEBPA single-mutated, 10 CEBPA double-mutated, and 10 non-methylated/non-mutated cases (Affymetrix HG-U133 Plus 2.0 microarrays; Santa Clara, CA). The microarray sample preparation assay was performed as previously reported. Gene expression raw data were processed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

Prognostic impact, concurrent genetic mutations, and gene expression features of AML with CEBPA mutations in a cohort of 1182 cytogenetically normal AML patients: further evidence for CEBPA double mutant AML as a distinctive disease entity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets