2010
DOI: 10.1038/leu.2010.73
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gene expression profiling in AML with normal karyotype can predict mutations for molecular markers and allows novel insights into perturbed biological pathways

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
37
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…19 In the independent validation cohort provided by the AMLSG, pretreatment BM (n ϭ 142) or peripheral blood (n ϭ 54) samples were studied by independent investigators using cDNA microarrays (n ϭ 130) or Affymetrix HG-U133plus2.0 oligonucleotide microarrays (n ϭ 66), as previously described. 20,21 LEF1 expression levels were dichotomized at the median of all samples. Analysis of differentially expressed genes and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) are described in supplemental Methods.…”
Section: Microarray Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 In the independent validation cohort provided by the AMLSG, pretreatment BM (n ϭ 142) or peripheral blood (n ϭ 54) samples were studied by independent investigators using cDNA microarrays (n ϭ 130) or Affymetrix HG-U133plus2.0 oligonucleotide microarrays (n ϭ 66), as previously described. 20,21 LEF1 expression levels were dichotomized at the median of all samples. Analysis of differentially expressed genes and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) are described in supplemental Methods.…”
Section: Microarray Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the notable exception of the MILE study, 16 so far there has been a relative paucity of other prospective and confirmatory studies, although recent studies performed within large AML study groups also suggest the potential clinical usefulness of GEP. 17,18 Although critics might state a lack of clear-cut advantages in comparison with standard cytogenetic and molecular genetic diagnostics, GEP-based diagnostic platforms might be useful for the identification of patients with masked fusion proteins (like t(15;17) and t(8;21)) that are not detected by conventional cytogenetics or fluorescence in situ hybridization. 97,98 In addition, GEP-based diagnostic platforms can provide information comparable to that of multiple different cytogenetic and molecular genetic analysis within a single experiment.…”
Section: Conclusion/perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In cancer, GEP has been used successfully to identify cancer subtypes, to stratify patients into responders vs nonresponders, and to predict survival but has, to a large extent, failed to uncover genes that are causally involved in cancer initiation and maintenance. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] These genes are obviously of great interest because they constitute potential targets for therapeutic intervention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%