Biomedical subjects

Ahmed Ashour Ahmed

Publications and source records attributed to Ahmed Ashour Ahmed.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Differential expression of selected histone modifier genes in human solid cancers.

BACKGROUND: Post-translational modification of histones resulting in chromatin remodelling plays a key role in the regulation of gene expression. Here we report characteristic patterns of expression of 12 members of 3 classes of chromatin modifier genes in 6 different cancer types: histone acetyltransferases (HATs)- EP300, CREBBP, and PCAF; histone deacetylases (HDACs)- HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC4, HDAC5, HDAC7A, and SIRT1; and histone methyltransferases (HMTs)- SUV39H1and SUV39H2. Expression of each gene in 225 samples (135 primary tumours, 47 cancer cell lines, and 43 normal tissues) was analysedby QRT-PCR, normalized with 8 housekeeping genes, and given as a ratio by comparison with a universal reference RNA. RESULTS: This involved a total of 13,000 PCR assays allowing for rigorous analysis by fitting a linear regression model to the data. Mutation analysis of HDAC1, HDAC2, SUV39H1, and SUV39H2 revealed only two out of 181 cancer samples (both cell lines) with significant coding-sequence alterations. Supervised analysis and Independent Component Analysis showed that expression of many of these genes was able to discriminate tumour samples from their normal counterparts. Clustering based on the normalized expression ratios of the 12 genes also showed that most samples were grouped according to tissue type. Using a linear discriminant classifier and internal cross-validation revealed that with as few as 5 of the 12 genes, SIRT1, CREBBP, HDAC7A, HDAC5 and PCAF, most samples were correctly assigned. CONCLUSION: The expression patterns of HATs, HDACs, and HMTs suggest these genes are important in neoplastic transformation and have characteristic patterns of expression depending on tissue of origin, with implications for potential clinical application.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2005

Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application?

Profiling breast cancer with expression arrays has become common, and it has been suggested that the results from early studies will lead to understanding of the molecular differences between clinical cases and allow individualization of care. We critically review two main applications of expression profiling; studies unraveling novel breast cancer classifications and those that aim to identify novel markers for prediction of clinical outcome. Breast cancer may now be subclassified into luminal, basal, and HER2 subtypes with distinct differences in prognosis and response to therapy. However, profiling studies to identify predictive markers have suffered from methodologic problems that prevent general application of their results. Future work will need to reanalyze existing microarray data sets to identify more representative sets of candidate genes for use as prognostic signatures and will need to take into account the new knowledge of molecular subtypes of breast cancer when assessing predictive effects.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗

PubMed2005

Microarrays and breast cancer clinical studies: forgetting what we have not yet learnt.

This review takes a sceptical view of the impact of breast cancer studies that have used microarrays to identify predictors of clinical outcome. In addition to discussing general pitfalls of microarray experiments, we also critically review the key breast cancer studies to highlight methodological problems in cohort selection, statistical analysis, validation of results and reporting of raw data. We conclude that the optimum use of microarrays in clinical studies requires further optimisation and standardisation of methodology and reporting, together with improvements in clinical study design.

Breast Neoplasms↗

PubMed2004

Microarray segmentation methods significantly influence data precision.

Little consideration has been given to the effect of different segmentation methods on the variability of data derived from microarray images. Previous work has suggested that the significant source of variability from microarray image analysis is from estimation of local background. In this study, we used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models to investigate the effect of methods of segmentation on the precision of measurements obtained from replicate microarray experiments. We used four different methods of spot segmentation (adaptive, fixed circle, histogram and GenePix) to analyse a total number of 156 172 spots from 12 microarray experiments. Using a two-way ANOVA model and the coefficient of repeatability, we show that the method of segmentation significantly affects the precision of the microarray data. The histogram method gave the lowest variability across replicate spots compared to other methods, and had the lowest pixel-to-pixel variability within spots. This effect on precision was independent of background subtraction. We show that these findings have direct, practical implications as the variability in precision between the four methods resulted in different numbers of genes being identified as differentially expressed. Segmentation method is an important source of variability in microarray data that directly affects precision and the identification of differentially expressed genes.

Algorithms↗