Biomedical subjects

Trond Hellem Bø

Publications and source records attributed to Trond Hellem Bø.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

ERG upregulation and related ETS transcription factors in prostate cancer.

The aim of this study was to identify and validate differentially expressed genes in matched pairs of benign and malignant prostate tissue. Samples included 29 histologically verified primary tumors and 23 benign controls. Microarray analysis was initially performed using a sequence verified set of 40,000 human cDNA clones. Among the genes most consistently and highly upregulated in prostate cancer was the ETS family transcription factor ERG (ETS related gene). This finding was validated in an expanded patient series (37 tumors and 38 benign samples) using DNA oligonucleotide microarray and real-time quantitative PCR assays. ERG was 20- to more than 100-fold overexpressed in prostate cancer compared with benign prostate tissue in more than 50% of patients according to quantitative PCR. Surprisingly, ERG mRNA levels were found to be significantly higher in the endothelial cell line, HUVEC, than in the prostate cell lines PC3, DU145 and LNCaP. In situ hybridization of prostate cancer tissue revealed that ERG was abundantly expressed in both prostate cancer cells and associated endothelial cells. The consistency and magnitude of ERG overexpression in prostate cancer appeared unique, but several related ETS transcription factors were also overexpressed in matched pairs of tumor and benign samples, whereas ETS2 was significantly underexpressed. Our findings support the hypothesis that ERG overexpression and related ETS transcription factors are important for early prostate carcinogenesis.

DNA Primers↗

PubMed2006

cDNA microarray analysis of non-selected cases of acute myeloid leukemia demonstrates distinct clustering independent of cytogenetic aberrations and consistent with morphological signs of differentiation.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous disease with respect to biology and clinical course. Until now the basis for prognostic evaluation and therapeutic decision has been the karyotype, genetic FLT3 abnormalities and the initial chemotherapy response. A question that has emerged is if extensive gene expression analysis may supplement or partly replace current diagnostics. In an attempt to address this question, we performed cDNA microarray analysis on peripheral blood samples of 25 patients with newly diagnosed AML with high blast counts. The patients were randomly selected from a large group of consecutive patients. Leave-one-out crossvalidation (LOOCV) showed with high accuracy that gene expression classifiers could predict if leukaemia samples belonged to the FAB AML-M1 or to the FAB AML-M2 groups. An unsupervised two-dimensional hierarchical cluster analysis generated 3 patient subgroups. Except for an accumulation of samples classified as FAB M1 and M2 in cluster 3, there was no evident relationship between the clusters and the FAB classification. Each subgroup displayed clearly distinguished gene expression patterns validated using real-time quantitative PCR analysis. The identification of specific gene expressions that together constitute regulatory modules must complement cluster analyses in order to achieve an accurate basis for prognosis and prediction.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

CD34 expression in native human acute myelogenous leukemia blasts: differences in CD34 membrane molecule expression are associated with different gene expression profiles.

BACKGROUND: The stem cell marker CD34 is expressed by leukemia blasts only for a subset of patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). It is still controversial as to whether CD34 expression (defined as at least 10-20% positive cells) has any prognostic effect in patients with AML who receive intensive chemotherapy. The present study investigated whether gene expression profiling could be used to further subclassify CD34(+) AML cell populations. METHODS: AML blasts derived from 25 patients were examined; these patients were randomly selected from a larger consecutive group of patients. CD34 protein expression was determined by flow cytometry and expressed as the percentage of positive cells. Gene expression profiles were determined by complementary DNA microarrays. RESULTS: By unsupervised hierarchical clustering our patients could be grouped into two or three major subsets depending on the methodologic approach before clustering analysis (filtering or flooring of data, respectively). However, both approaches identified a cluster characterized by high gene expression and membrane molecule level of CD34. When using the floored expression profiles, the patient cluster characterized by increased CD34 gene expression was also characterized by a high percentage of CD34(+) cells (median 82%, range 56-100%) compared with the two other major clusters (median 19%, range <1-55%), but three of four outpatients also showed a high percentage of CD34(+) cells. CONCLUSION: A major proportion of patients with AML and high CD34 expression (usually >80% CD34(+) cells; nearly all patients had >50% positive cells) showed similarities in gene expression profile. In contrast, patients with lower CD34 expression often had a profile similar to those of patients regarded as CD34(-) according to conventional criteria. Our results suggest that the possible prognostic effect of CD34 expression should be reevaluated in clinical studies using additional or alternative cutoff values to describe CD34 expression.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Gene expression profiles in prostate cancer: association with patient subgroups and tumour differentiation.

Prostate carcinoma is the most common cancer of western men and is a markedly heterogeneous disease. The aim of this study was to identify signatures of differentially expressed genes in prostate cancer using DNA microarray technology, evaluating expression profiles in matched pairs of benign and malignant tissue. Samples were collected from 33 radical prostatectomies, and 52 specimens were included, representing 29 histologically verified primary tumours, 19 paired samples of malignant and benign tissue, and 4 non-paired benign tissue samples. Microarray analysis was performed using an expanded sequence verified set of 40,000 human cDNA clones, revealing several genes with significant differences between malignant and benign tissue, including recently reported genes like alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) and hepsin, as well as genes relevant for tumour development and progression. Leave out cross validation (LOCV) test correctly predicted tumour or benign tissue in 47 (90.3%) out of 52 cases, significantly better than cross validation tests using randomly permuted tissue labels. Unsupervised clustering analysis revealed 3 distinct patient clusters significantly associated with Gleason score, and high grade tumours (Gleason score >/=7) accumulated in cluster 1 (C1). Gene expression profiles correctly predicted 100% of tumour samples segregating to C1, as also validated by LOCV. Gene expression profiles were analysed in filtered and floored datasets with similar results, and a pair-wise design was also tested. Gene expression profiles provided tumour clusters linked to differentiation, and revealed novel markers relevant for molecular classification, grading and therapy of prostate cancer.

Cluster Analysis↗

PubMed2004

LSimpute: accurate estimation of missing values in microarray data with least squares methods.

Microarray experiments generate data sets with information on the expression levels of thousands of genes in a set of biological samples. Unfortunately, such experiments often produce multiple missing expression values, normally due to various experimental problems. As many algorithms for gene expression analysis require a complete data matrix as input, the missing values have to be estimated in order to analyze the available data. Alternatively, genes and arrays can be removed until no missing values remain. However, for genes or arrays with only a small number of missing values, it is desirable to impute those values. For the subsequent analysis to be as informative as possible, it is essential that the estimates for the missing gene expression values are accurate. A small amount of badly estimated missing values in the data might be enough for clustering methods, such as hierachical clustering or K-means clustering, to produce misleading results. Thus, accurate methods for missing value estimation are needed. We present novel methods for estimation of missing values in microarray data sets that are based on the least squares principle, and that utilize correlations between both genes and arrays. For this set of methods, we use the common reference name LSimpute. We compare the estimation accuracy of our methods with the widely used KNNimpute on three complete data matrices from public data sets by randomly knocking out data (labeling as missing). From these tests, we conclude that our LSimpute methods produce estimates that consistently are more accurate than those obtained using KNNimpute. Additionally, we examine a more classic approach to missing value estimation based on expectation maximization (EM). We refer to our EM implementations as EMimpute, and the estimate errors using the EMimpute methods are compared with those our novel methods produce. The results indicate that on average, the estimates from our best performing LSimpute method are at least as accurate as those from the best EMimpute algorithm.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2003

Tumor classification and marker gene prediction by feature selection and fuzzy c-means clustering using microarray data.

BACKGROUND: Using DNA microarrays, we have developed two novel models for tumor classification and target gene prediction. First, gene expression profiles are summarized by optimally selected Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs), followed by tumor sample classification by Fuzzy C-means clustering. Then, the prediction of marker genes is accomplished by either manual feature selection (visualizing the weighted/mean SOM component plane) or automatic feature selection (by pair-wise Fisher's linear discriminant). RESULTS: The proposed models were tested on four published datasets: (1) Leukemia (2) Colon cancer (3) Brain tumors and (4) NCI cancer cell lines. The models gave class prediction with markedly reduced error rates compared to other class prediction approaches, and the importance of feature selection on microarray data analysis was also emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: Our models identify marker genes with predictive potential, often better than other available methods in the literature. The models are potentially useful for medical diagnostics and may reveal some insights into cancer classification. Additionally, we illustrated two limitations in tumor classification from microarray data related to the biology underlying the data, in terms of (1) the class size of data, and (2) the internal structure of classes. These limitations are not specific for the classification models used.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗