Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15476557›Full record

ArticleMolecular cancer2004

A CpG island hypermethylation profile of primary colorectal carcinomas and colon cancer cell lines.

Guro E Lind, Lin Thorstensen, Tone Løvig, Gunn I Meling, Richard Hamelin, Torleiv O Rognum, Manel Esteller, Ragnhild A Lothe

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Sex and gender differences in cancer pathogenesis and pharmacology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Journal of biological chemistry · 2017
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Guro E LindDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, 0310 Oslo, Norway. guroli@ulrik.uio.no
Lin Thorstensen
Tone Løvig
Gunn I Meling
Richard Hamelin
Torleiv O Rognum
Manel Esteller
Ragnhild A Lothe
Norwegian Cancer Society · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOAkershus University Hospital · NOInserm · FRSpanish National Cancer Research Centre · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumor cell lines are commonly used as experimental tools in cancer research, but their relevance for the in vivo situation is debated. In a series of 11 microsatellite stable (MSS) and 9 microsatellite unstable (MSI) colon cancer cell lines and primary colon carcinomas (25 MSS and 28 MSI) with known ploidy stem line and APC, KRAS, and TP53 mutation status, we analyzed the promoter methylation of the following genes: hMLH1, MGMT, p16INK4a (CDKN2A alpha-transcript), p14ARF (CDKN2A beta-transcript), APC, and E-cadherin (CDH1). We compared the DNA methylation profiles of the cell lines with those of the primary tumors. Finally, we examined if the epigenetic changes were associated with known genetic markers and/or clinicopathological variables.

resultsThe cell lines and primary tumors generally showed similar overall distribution and frequencies of gene methylation. Among the cell lines, 15%, 50%, 75%, 65%, 20% and 15% showed promoter methylation for hMLH1, MGMT, p16INK4a, p14ARF, APC, and E-cadherin, respectively, whereas 21%, 40%, 32%, 38%, 32%, and 40% of the primary tumors were methylated for the same genes. hMLH1 and p14ARF were significantly more often methylated in MSI than in MSS primary tumors, whereas the remaining four genes showed similar methylation frequencies in the two groups. Methylation of p14ARF, which indirectly inactivates TP53, was seen more frequently in tumors with normal TP53 than in mutated samples, but the difference was not statistically significant. Methylation of p14ARF and p16INK4a was often present in the same primary tumors, but association to diploidy, MSI, right-sided location and female gender was only significant for p14ARF. E-cadherin was methylated in 14/34 tumors with altered APC further stimulating WNT signaling.

conclusionsThe present study shows that colon cancer cell lines are in general relevant in vitro models, comparable with the in vivo situation, as the cell lines display many of the same molecular alterations as do the primary carcinomas. The combined pattern of epigenetic and genetic aberrations in the primary carcinomas reveals associations between them as well as to clinicopathological variables, and may aid in the future molecular assisted classification of clinically distinct stages.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationAdaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingCadherinsCarrier ProteinsCell Line, TumorColonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCpG IslandsCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16FemaleGenes, APCHumansMaleMicrosatellite RepeatsMutL Protein Homolog 1Neoplasm ProteinsAdaptor Proteins, Signal TransducingCadherinsCarrier ProteinsCyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16MLH1 protein, humanMutL Protein Homolog 1Neoplasm ProteinsNuclear ProteinsO(6)-Methylguanine-DNA MethyltransferaseTumor Suppressor Protein p14ARF

Identifiers

PMID15476557
PMCPMC526388
OpenAlexW2116507825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.