Unknown,Transcriptomics,Genomics,Proteomics

Dataset Information

Methylation of the Proximal, Distal and Core Promoter of CEBPA in 572 Cases with Normal Karyotpye AML and 44 with t(8;21) Disclosed Different Frequencies but no Impact on Prognosis

ABSTRACT: 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.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

SUBMITTER: Andreas Roller

PROVIDER: E-GEOD-34733 | biostudies-arrayexpress |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-arrayexpress

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

Methylation of the Proximal, Distal and Core Promoter of CEBPA in 572 Cases with Normal Karyotpye AML and 44 with t(8;21) Disclosed Different Frequencies but no Impact on Prognosis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets