CpG methylation signature predicts prognosis in breast cancer
- 78 Downloads
DNA methylation can be used as prognostic biomarkers in various types of cancers. We aimed to identify a CpG methylation pattern for breast cancer.
In this study, using the microarray data from the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) and gene expression omnibus (GEO), we profiled DNA methylation between 97 healthy control samples and 786 breast cancer samples in a training cohort (from TCGA, n = 883) to build a gene classifier using a penalized regression model. We validated the prognostic accuracy of this gene classifier in an internal validation cohort (from GEO, n = 72).
A total of 1777 differentially methylated CpGs corresponding to 1777 different methylated genes (DMGs) between breast cancer and control were chosen for this study. Subsequently, 16 CpGs were generated to classify patients into high-risk and low-risk groups in the training cohort. Patients with high-risk scores in the training cohort had shorter overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.674; 95% CI 2.918 to 7.487; P = 1.678e–12) than patients with low-risk scores. The prognostic accuracy was also validated in the validation cohorts. Furthermore, among patients with low-risk scores in the combined training and validation cohorts, the patients with the age > 60 years compared with the patients with the age < 60 years were associated with improved overall survival (HR 2.088, 95% CI 1.348 to 3.235; p = 7.575e–04) in patients with a high-risk score but not in patients with low-risk score (HR 1.246, 95% CI 0.515 to 3.011; p = 0.625). The patients treated with radiotherapy compared with the patients without radiotherapy were associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.418, 95% CI 0.249 to 0.703; p = 6.991e-04) in patients with a high-risk score but not in patients with low-risk score (HR 2.092, 95% CI 0.574 to 7.629; p = 0.253). For the patients with recurrence and the patients without recurrence both groups were all associated with improved overall survival (HR 7.475, 95% CI 4.333 to 12.901; p = 6.991e–04) in patients with a high-risk score and in patients with low-risk score (HR 14.33, 95% CI 4.265 to 48.17; p = 4.883e–13).
The 16 CpG-based signature is useful as a biomarker in predicting prognosis for patients with breast cancer.
KeywordsBreast cancer DNA methylation Prognosis Overall survival CpG sites
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Tang Q, Holland-Letz T, Slynko A, Cuk K, Marme F, Schott S, Heil J, Qu B, Golatta M, Bewerunge-Hudler M, Sutter C, Surowy H, Wappenschmidt B, Schmutzler R, Hoth M, Bugert P, Bartram CR, Sohn C, Schneeweiss A, Yang R, Burwinkel B (2016) DNA methylation array analysis identifies breast cancer associated RPTOR, MGRN1 and RAPSN hypomethylation in peripheral blood DNA. Oncotarget 7(39):64191–64202. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1164011640 Google Scholar
- 9.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodological) 57(1):289–300Google Scholar
- 11.Wang P, Wang Y, Hang B, Zou X, Mao JH (2016) A novel gene expression-based prognostic scoring system to predict survival in gastric cancer. Oncotarget 7(34):55343–55351Google Scholar
- 15.Lesicka M, Jablonska E, Wieczorek E, Seroczynska B, Kalinowski L, Skokowski J, Reszka E (2019) A different methylation profile of circadian genes promoter in breast cancer patients according to clinicopathological features. Chronobiol Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2019.1617732 Google Scholar
- 16.Yang Y, Wu L, Shu XO, Cai Q, Shu X, Li B, Guo X, Ye F, Michailidou K, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Andrulis IL, Brenner H, Chenevix-Trench G, Campa D, Castelao JE, Gago-Dominguez M, Dork T, Hollestelle A, Lophatananon A, Muir K, Neuhausen SL, Olsson H, Sandler DP, Simard J, Kraft P, Pharoah PDP, Easton DF, Zheng W, Long J (2019) Genetically predicted levels of DNA methylation biomarkers and breast cancer risk: data from 228,951 women of European descent. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz109 Google Scholar
- 18.Martin-Sanchez E, Mendaza S, Ulazia-Garmendia A, Monreal-Santesteban I, Blanco-Luquin I, Cordoba A, Vicente-Garcia F, Perez-Janices N, Escors D, Megias D, Lopez-Serra P, Esteller M, Illarramendi JJ, Guerrero-Setas D (2017) CHL1 hypermethylation as a potential biomarker of poor prognosis in breast cancer. Oncotarget 8(9):15789–15801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Cao WH, Liu XP, Meng SL, Gao YW, Wang Y, Ma ZL, Wang XG, Wang HB (2016) USP4 promotes invasion of breast cancer cells via Relaxin/TGF-beta1/Smad2/MMP-9 signal. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20(6):1115–1122Google Scholar
- 22.JingSong H, Hong G, Yang J, Duo Z, Li F, WeiCai C, XueYing L, YouSheng M, YiWen O, Yue P, Zou C (2017) siRNA-mediated suppression of collagen type IV alpha 2 (COL4A2) mRNA inhibits triple-negative breast cancer cell proliferation and migration. Oncotarget 8(2):2585–2593Google Scholar
- 23.Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, Cronin M, Baehner FL, Watson D, Bryant J, Costantino JP, Geyer CE Jr, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(23):3726–3734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Teschendorff AE, Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ramus SJ, Gayther SA, Apostolidou S, Jones A, Lechner M, Beck S, Jacobs IJ, Widschwendter M (2009) An epigenetic signature in peripheral blood predicts active ovarian cancer. PLoS ONE 4(12):e8274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar