Cargando…

Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method

BACKGROUND: In colorectal carcinoma, extensive gene promoter hypermethylation is called the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). Explaining why studies on CIMP and survival yield conflicting results is essential. Most experiments to measure DNA methylation rely on the sodium bisulfite conversion...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tournier, Benjamin, Chapusot, Caroline, Courcet, Emilie, Martin, Laurent, Lepage, Côme, Faivre, Jean, Piard, Françoise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22243995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-12
_version_ 1782225353010315264
author Tournier, Benjamin
Chapusot, Caroline
Courcet, Emilie
Martin, Laurent
Lepage, Côme
Faivre, Jean
Piard, Françoise
author_facet Tournier, Benjamin
Chapusot, Caroline
Courcet, Emilie
Martin, Laurent
Lepage, Côme
Faivre, Jean
Piard, Françoise
author_sort Tournier, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In colorectal carcinoma, extensive gene promoter hypermethylation is called the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). Explaining why studies on CIMP and survival yield conflicting results is essential. Most experiments to measure DNA methylation rely on the sodium bisulfite conversion of unmethylated cytosines into uracils. No study has evaluated the performance of bisulfite conversion and methylation levels from matched cryo-preserved and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) samples using pyrosequencing. METHODS: Couples of matched cryo-preserved and FFPE samples from 40 colon adenocarcinomas were analyzed. Rates of bisulfite conversion and levels of methylation of LINE-1, MLH1 and MGMT markers were measured. RESULTS: For the reproducibility of bisulfite conversion, the mean of bisulfite-to-bisulfite standard deviation (SD) was 1.3%. The mean of run-to-run SD of PCR/pyrosequencing was 0.9%. Of the 40 DNA couples, only 67.5%, 55.0%, and 57.5% of FFPE DNA were interpretable for LINE-1, MLH1, and MGMT markers, respectively, after the first analysis. On frozen samples the proportion of well converted samples was 95.0%, 97.4% and 87.2% respectively. For DNA showing a total bisulfite conversion, 8 couples (27.6%) for LINE-1, 4 couples (15.4%) for MLH1 and 8 couples (25.8%) for MGMT displayed significant differences in methylation levels. CONCLUSIONS: Frozen samples gave reproducible results for bisulfite conversion and reliable methylation levels. FFPE samples gave unsatisfactory and non reproducible bisulfite conversions leading to random results for methylation levels. The use of FFPE collections to assess DNA methylation by bisulfite methods must not be recommended. This can partly explain the conflicting results on the prognosis of CIMP colon cancers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3293017
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32930172012-03-05 Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method Tournier, Benjamin Chapusot, Caroline Courcet, Emilie Martin, Laurent Lepage, Côme Faivre, Jean Piard, Françoise BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: In colorectal carcinoma, extensive gene promoter hypermethylation is called the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). Explaining why studies on CIMP and survival yield conflicting results is essential. Most experiments to measure DNA methylation rely on the sodium bisulfite conversion of unmethylated cytosines into uracils. No study has evaluated the performance of bisulfite conversion and methylation levels from matched cryo-preserved and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) samples using pyrosequencing. METHODS: Couples of matched cryo-preserved and FFPE samples from 40 colon adenocarcinomas were analyzed. Rates of bisulfite conversion and levels of methylation of LINE-1, MLH1 and MGMT markers were measured. RESULTS: For the reproducibility of bisulfite conversion, the mean of bisulfite-to-bisulfite standard deviation (SD) was 1.3%. The mean of run-to-run SD of PCR/pyrosequencing was 0.9%. Of the 40 DNA couples, only 67.5%, 55.0%, and 57.5% of FFPE DNA were interpretable for LINE-1, MLH1, and MGMT markers, respectively, after the first analysis. On frozen samples the proportion of well converted samples was 95.0%, 97.4% and 87.2% respectively. For DNA showing a total bisulfite conversion, 8 couples (27.6%) for LINE-1, 4 couples (15.4%) for MLH1 and 8 couples (25.8%) for MGMT displayed significant differences in methylation levels. CONCLUSIONS: Frozen samples gave reproducible results for bisulfite conversion and reliable methylation levels. FFPE samples gave unsatisfactory and non reproducible bisulfite conversions leading to random results for methylation levels. The use of FFPE collections to assess DNA methylation by bisulfite methods must not be recommended. This can partly explain the conflicting results on the prognosis of CIMP colon cancers. BioMed Central 2012-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3293017/ /pubmed/22243995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-12 Text en Copyright ©2011 Tournier et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tournier, Benjamin
Chapusot, Caroline
Courcet, Emilie
Martin, Laurent
Lepage, Côme
Faivre, Jean
Piard, Françoise
Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title_full Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title_fullStr Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title_full_unstemmed Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title_short Why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
title_sort why do results conflict regarding the prognostic value of the methylation status in colon cancers? the role of the preservation method
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22243995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-12
work_keys_str_mv AT tournierbenjamin whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT chapusotcaroline whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT courcetemilie whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT martinlaurent whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT lepagecome whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT faivrejean whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod
AT piardfrancoise whydoresultsconflictregardingtheprognosticvalueofthemethylationstatusincoloncancerstheroleofthepreservationmethod