Colorectal cancer (CRC) arises as a consequence of the accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations in colonic epithelial cells during neoplastic transformation. Epigenetic modifications, particularly DNA methylation in selected gene promoters, are recognized as common molecular alterations in human tumors. Substantial efforts have been made to determine the cause and role of aberrant DNA methylation ("epigenomic instability") in colon carcinogenesis. In the colon, aberrant DNA methylation arises in tumor-adjacent, normal-appearing mucosa. Aberrant methylation also contributes to later stages of colon carcinogenesis through simultaneous methylation in key specific genes that alter specific oncogenic pathways. Hypermethylation of several gene clusters has been termed CpG island methylator phenotype and appears to define a subgroup of colon cancer distinctly characterized by pathological, clinical, and molecular features. DNA methylation of multiple promoters may serve as a biomarker for early detection in stool and blood DNA and as a tool for monitoring patients with CRC. DNA methylation patterns may also be predictors of metastatic or aggressive CRC. Therefore, the aim of this review is to understand DNA methylation as a driving force in colorectal neoplasia and its emerging value as a molecular marker in the clinic.

DNA methylation has a role in mediating epigenetic silencing of CpG island genes in cancer and other diseases. Identification of all gene promoters methylated in cancer cells ''the cancer methylome'' would greatly advance our understanding of gene regulatory networks in tumorigenesis. We previously described a new method of identifying methylated tumor suppressor genes based on pharmacologic unmasking of the promoter region and detection of re-expression on microarray analysis. In this study, we modified and greatly improved the selection of candidates based on new promoter structure algorithm and microarray data generated from 20 cancer cell lines of 5 major cancer types. We identified a set of 200 candidate genes that cluster throughout the genome of which 25 were previously reported as harboring cancer-specific promoter methylation. The remaining 175 genes were tested for promoter methylation by bisulfite sequencing or methylation-specific PCR (MSP). Eighty-two of 175 (47%) genes were found to be methylated in cell lines, and 53 of these 82 genes (65%) were methylated in primary tumor tissues. From these 53 genes, cancer-specific methylation was identified in 28 genes (28 of 53; 53%). Furthermore, we tested 8 of the 28 newly identified cancer-specific methylated genes with quantitative MSP in a panel of 300 primary tumors representing 13 types of cancer. We found cancer-specific methylation of at least one gene with high frequency in all cancer types. Identification of a large number of genes with cancer-specific methylation provides new targets for diagnostic and therapeutic intervention, and opens fertile avenues for basic research in tumor biology.

Embryonic stem (ES) cells have the ability to self-replicate and differentiate into cells from all three germ layers

p63 is a member of the p53 tumor suppressor gene family, which regulates downstream target gene expression by binding to sequence-specific response elements similar to those of p53. By using oligonucleotide expression microarray analysis and analyzing the promoters of p63-induced genes, we have identified novel p63-specific response elements (p63-REs) in the promoter regions of EVPL and SMARCD3. These p63-REs exhibit characteristic differences from the canonical p53-RE (RRRCWWGYYY) in both the core-binding element (CWWG) as well as the RRR and/or YYY stretches. Luciferase assays on mutagenized promoter constructs followed by electromobility shift analysis showed that p53 preferentially activates and binds to the RRRCATGYYY sequence, whereas p63 preferentially activates RRRCGTGYYY. Whereas EVPL protein is highly expressed in epithelial cells of the skin and pharynx in the p63 ؉/؉ mouse, it is undetectable in these tissues in the p63 ؊/؊ mouse. Our results indicate that p63 can regulate expression of specific target genes such as those involved in skin, limb, and craniofacial development by preferentially activating distinct p63-specific response elements.p63 is a member of the p53 tumor suppressor gene family. Similar to p53, p63 is a transcription factor that activates target genes through sequence-specific DNA binding (35,41,43,52,56). It has been shown that expression of p21 waf-1 , MDM2, and BAX are induced by TAp63s through binding to p53 response elements (p53-REs) (45). In spite of their structural similarities, p63 functions differ greatly from those of p53. The most striking difference is the apparent involvement of p63 in skin and limb development. The p63 knockout mouse exhibits skin and limb defects as well as craniofacial abnormalities (29, 57). On the other hand, the p53 knockout mouse develops normally but is prone to suffering from various cancers from an early age (7). Heterozygous p63 germ line mutations cause several skin and other developmental disorders (1,3,17,28,53). On the other hand, germ line mutations of p53 cause Li-Fraumeni syndrome, in which affected individuals are exceptionally prone to developing cancer (26). p63 complements p53-dependent apoptosis induced by DNA damage. However, p63 itself induces apoptosis to a lesser extent than p53 (12, 42).These differences may be due to the differential regulation of target genes by p53 and p63. The p53 and p63 proteins can bind to two or more tandem repeats of RRRCWWGYYY (p53-RE) or some other motifs and subsequently activate target gene expression (5, 9, 54, 56). In the case of the 14-3-3 promoter, p53 and p63 differentially bind to two distinct response elements (55). Until now, a number of genes have been reported to be targets of p63 and its close relative, p73, such as JAG1, JAG2, IL4R, ⌬Np73, AQP3, and REDD1 (11,30,39,40,59). However, p63-specific response elements (p63-REs) have not yet been defined. Thus, the specific mechanism of gene activation exhibited by p63 and its distinction from that exhibited by p53 remain unclear.In order...