A 115-bp MethyLight assay for detection of p16 (CDKN2A) methylation as a diagnostic biomarker in human tissues

Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research, Ministry of Education, Department of Aetiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China.
BMC Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 2.45). 05/2011; 12(1):67. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-12-67
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT p16 Methylation is a potential biomarker for prediction of malignant transformation of epithelial dysplasia. A probe-based, quantitative, methylation-specific PCR (MSP) called MethyLight may become an eligible method for detecting this marker clinically. We studied oral mucosa biopsies with epithelial dysplasia from 78 patients enrolled in a published 4-years' followup cohort, in which cancer risk for patients with p16 methylation-positive dysplasia was significantly higher than those without p16 methylation (by 150-bp MSP and bisulfite sequencing; +133 ~ +283, transcription starting site, +1). The p16 methylation status in samples (N = 102) containing sufficient DNA was analyzed by the 70-bp classic (+238 ~ +307) and 115-bp novel (+157 ~ +272) MethyLight assays, respectively.
p16 Methylation was detectable in 75 samples using the classic MethyLight assay. The methylated-p16 positive rate and proportion of methylated-p16 by the MethyLight in MSP-positive samples were higher than those in MSP-negative samples (positive rate: 37/44 vs. 38/58, P=0.035, two-sided; proportion [median]: 0.78 vs. 0.02, P <0.007). Using the published results of MSP as a golden standard, we found sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for this MethyLight assay to be 70.5%, 84.5%, and 55.0%, respectively. Because amplicon of the classic MethyLight procedure only partially overlapped with the MSP amplicon, we further designed a 115-bp novel MethyLight assay in which the amplicon on the sense-strand fully overlapped with the MSP amplicon on the antisense-strand. Using the 115-bp MethyLight assay, we observed methylated-p16 in 26 of 44 MSP-positive samples and 2 of 58 MSP-negative ones (P = 0.000). These results were confirmed with clone sequencing. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using the 115-bp MethyLight assay were 59.1%, 98.3%, and 57.4%, respectively. Significant differences in the oral cancer rate were observed during the followup between patients (≥60 years) with and without methylated-p16 as detected by the 115-bp MethyLight assay (6/8 vs. 6/22, P = 0.034, two-sided).
The 115-bp MethyLight assay is a useful and practical assay with very high specificity for the detection of p16 methylation clinically.

Download full-text


Available from: Dajun Deng, Jun 20, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Silencing of P16 through methylation and locus deletion are the most frequent early events in carcinogenesis. The aim of this study is to prospectively determine if early P16 methylation is a predictor for oral cancer development.
    03/2015; 38(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.03.015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The inactivation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p16(INK4A) gene by hypermethylation is observed in numerous types of cancer. New findings indicate that DNA and histone methylation act in concert in gene silencing. In this study, we investigated the methylation status of the p16(INK4A) gene promoter and the histone 3 lysine 9 residue in the tumors and matched normal tissue samples from patients with colorectal cancer and analyzed their association with gene expression. The methylation and expression of the p16(INK4A) gene were analyzed by real-time PCR, and histone methylation was analyzed by chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by real-time PCR. p16(INK4A) expression was significantly higher in the tumors compared to normal tissue. Mono-, di- and trimethylation levels of the H3K9 residue were similar in the tumor and normal tissue samples. We did not observe any significant correlation between p16(INK4A) methylation or expression and clinical parameters. Our results suggest that epigenetic modifications of the p16(INK4A) gene and histone lysine methylation do not play a major role in colon carcinogenesis.
    Experimental and therapeutic medicine 11/2012; 4(5):865-870. DOI:10.3892/etm.2012.683 · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reactive oxygen species (ROS) can cause severe damage to DNA, proteins and lipids in normal cells, contributing to carcinogenesis and various pathological conditions. While cellular senescence arrests the early phase of cell cycle without any detectable telomere loss or dysfunction. ROS is reported to contribute to induction of cellular senescence, as evidence by its premature onset upon treatment with antioxidants or inhibitors of cellular oxidant scavengers. Although cellular senescence is known to be implicated in tumor suppression, it remains unknown whether ROS initially contributed to be cellular senescence in normal human epidermal keratinocytes (NHEK) and their malignant counterparts. To clarify whether ROS induce cellular senescence in NHEK, we examined the effect of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) on the expression of cellular senescence-associated molecules in NHEK, compared to in squamous carcinoma cells (SCCs). Hydrogen peroxide increased the number of cells positive in senescence associated-β-galactosidase (SA-β-Gal) activity in NHEK, but not SCCs. The expression of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors, especially p16INK4a was upregulated in NHEK treated with H2O2. Interestingly, H2O2 suppressed the methylation of p16 INK4a, promoter region in NHEK, but not in SCCs. Hydrogen peroxide also suppressed the expression of phosphorylated Rb and CDK4, resulting in arrest in G0/G1 phase in NHEKs, but not SCCs Our results indicate that the ROS-induced cellular senescence in NHEK was caused by the upregulation p16 INK4a through demethylation in its promoter region, which is not detected in SCCs, suggesting that ROS-induced cellular senescence contributes to tumor suppression of NHEK.
    Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 09/2014; 452(3). DOI:10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.08.123 · 2.28 Impact Factor