Meta-analysis of gene expression in relapsed childhood B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Abstract

BackgroundRelapsed pediatric B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) remains as the leading cause of cancer death among children. Other than stem cell transplantation and intensified chemotherapy, no other improved treatment strategies have been approved clinically. Gene expression profiling represents a powerful approach to identify potential biomarkers and new therapeutic targets for various diseases including leukemias. However, inadequate sample size in many individual experiments has failed to provide adequate study power to yield translatable findings. With the hope of getting new insights into the biological mechanisms underpinning relapsed ALL and identifying more promising biomarkers or therapeutic targets, we conducted a meta-analysis of gene expression studies involving ALL from 3 separate studies.MethodBy using the keywords “acute lymphoblastic leukemia”, and “microarray”, a total of 280 and 275 microarray datasets were found listed in Gene Expression Omnibus database GEO and ArrayExpress database respectively. Further manual inspection found that only three studies (GSE18497, GSE28460, GSE3910) were focused on gene expression profiling of paired diagnosis-relapsed pediatric B-ALL. These three datasets which comprised of a total of 108 matched diagnosis-relapsed pediatric B-ALL samples were then included for this meta-analysis using RankProd approach.ResultsOur analysis identified a total of 1795 upregulated probes which corresponded to 1527 genes (pfp < 0.01; FC > 1), and 1493 downregulated probes which corresponded to 1214 genes (pfp < 0.01; FC < 1) respectively. S100A8 appeared as the top most overexpressed gene (pfp < 0.01, FC = 1.8) and is a potential target for further validation. Based on gene ontology biological process annotation, the upregulated genes were most enriched in cell cycle processes (enrichment score = 15.3), whilst the downregulated genes were clustered in transcription regulation (enrichment score = 12.6). Elevated expression of cell cycle regulators (e.g kinesins, AURKA, CDKs) was the key genetic defect implicated in relapsed ALL, and serve as attractive targets for therapeutic intervention.ConclusionWe identified S100A8 as the most overexpressed gene, and the cell cycle pathway as the most promising biomarker and therapeutic target for relapsed childhood B-ALL. The validity of the results warrants further investigation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3103-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Knockdown of pseudogene derived from lncRNA DUXAP10 inhibits cell proliferation, migration, invasion, and promotes apoptosis in pancreatic cancer

“…We founded that DUXAP10 was up‐regulated both in GSE15471 and GSE16515 datasets, while the expression level of DUXAP10 were found not to be significantly up‐regulation in GSE15932 (fold change >2.0, P < 0.05; Figure A;). To avoid the limitation of small sample sizes in individual study, we then performed meta‐analysis on these three datasets using RankProd approach . Interestingly, DUXAP10 were found to be up‐regulated in meta‐analysis of three microarray datasets (fold change =1.35, P < 0.001; Figure B;).…”

Relapse-associated AURKB blunts the glucocorticoid sensitivity of B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia

“…Analyzed individually, these studies identified dozens of genes misexpressed on relapse (13)(14)(15). A recent metaanalysis of these three studies (40) identified hundreds more, but some misexpressed genes (e. g., AURKB) were not identified, and others had surprisingly lowconfidence values (e.g., false discovery rate = 0). We, therefore, Fig.…”

Using microarray analysis to identify genes and pathways that regulate fetal hemoglobin levels

“…Despite the great promise of microarray technology for understanding β‐hemoglobinopathies (Bianchi et al., ; Flanagan et al., ), individual studies have various limitations, including the production of results that are not reproducible or conflicting (Melboucy‐Belkhir et al., ). These issues are likely a result of differences in experimental platforms, samples, standardization methods, and analytical methods, causing discrepancies in the microarray data obtained from different laboratories (Chow, Alias, & Jamal, ). Hence, much valuable information may be missed.…”