Characteristics of cross-hybridization and cross-alignment of expression in pseudo-xenograft samples by RNA-Seq and microarrays

Journal of Clinical Bioinformatics

Jennifer Clarke¹  Nicholas Tsinoremas²  Pearl Seo⁴  Camilo Valdes³ 

[1] Division of Biostatistics, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA;Department of Computer Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA;Center for Computational Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA;Department of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

关键词: Pathway analysis;    Xenograft;    Tumor microenvironment;    Cross-alignment;    Cross-hybridization;    RNA-Seq;    Microarray;   

Others  :  811520
DOI  :  10.1186/2043-9113-3-8

 received in 2012-10-25, accepted in 2013-03-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Exploring stromal changes associated with tumor growth and development is a growing area of oncologic research. In order to study molecular changes in the stroma it is recommended to separate tumor tissue from stromal tissue. This is relevant to xenograft models where tumors can be small and difficult to separate from host tissue. We introduce a novel definition of cross-alignment/cross-hybridization to compare qualitatively the ability of high-throughput mRNA sequencing, RNA-Seq, and microarrays to detect tumor and stromal expression from mixed ‘pseudo-xenograft’ samples vis-à-vis genes and pathways in cross-alignment (RNA-Seq) and cross-hybridization (microarrays). Samples consisted of normal mouse lung and human breast cancer cells; these were combined in fixed proportions to create a titration series of 25% steps. Our definition identifies genes in a given species (human or mouse) with undetectable expression in same-species RNA but detectable expression in cross-species RNA. We demonstrate the comparative value of this method and discuss its potential contribution in cancer research.

Results

Our method can identify genes from either species that demonstrate cross-hybridization and/or cross-alignment properties. Surprisingly, the set of genes identified using a simpler and more common approach (using a ‘pure’ cross-species sample and calling all detected genes as ‘crossers’) is not a superset of the genes identified using our technique. The observed levels of cross-hybridization are relatively low: 5.3% of human genes detected in mouse, and 3.5% of mouse genes detected in human. Observed levels of cross-alignment are practically comparable to the levels of cross-hybridization: 6.5% of human genes detected in mouse, and 2.3% of mouse genes detected in human. We also observed a relatively high percentage of orthologs: 40.3% of cross-hybridizing genes, and 32.2% of cross-aligning genes.

Normalizing the gene catalog to use Consensus Coding Sequence (CCDS) IDs (Genome Res 19:1316–1323, 2009), our results show that the observed levels of cross-hybridization are low: 2.7% of human CCDS IDs are detected in mouse, and 2.4% of mouse CCDS IDs are detected in human. Levels of cross-alignment using the RNA-Seq data are comparable for the mouse, 2.2% of mouse CCDS IDs detected in human, and 9.9% of human CCDS IDs detected in mouse. However, the lists of cross-aligning/cross-hybridizing genes contain many that are of specific interest to oncologic researchers.

Conclusions

The conservative definition that we propose identifies genes in mouse whose expression can be attributed to human RNA, and vice versa, as well as revealing genes with cross-alignment/cross-hybridization properties which could not be identified using a simpler but more established approach. The overall percentage of genes affected by cross-hybridization/cross-alignment is small, but includes genes that are of interest to oncologic researchers. Which platform to use with mixed xenograft samples, microarrays or RNA-Seq, appears to be primarily a question of cost and whether the detection and measurement of expression of specific genes of interest are likely to be affected by cross-hybridization or cross-alignment.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Valdes et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cloonan N, Forrest ARR, Kolle G, Gardiner BBA, Faulkner GJ, Brown MK, Taylor DF, Steptoe AL, Wani S, Bethel G, Robertson AJ, Perkins AC, Bruce SJ, Lee CC, Ranade SS, Peckham HE, Manning JM, McKernan KJ, Grimmond SM: Stem cell transcriptome profiling via massive-scale mRNA sequencing. Nat Methods 2008, 5:613-619.
• [2]Marioni JC, Mason CE, Mane SM, Stephens M, Gilad Y: RNA-seq: an assessment of technical reproducibility and comparison with gene expression arrays. Genome Res 2008, 18:1509-1517.
• [3]Tlsty TD, Coussens LM: Tumor stroma and regulation of cancer development.
• [4]Mortazavi A, Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L, Wold B: Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods 2008, 5:621-628.
• [5]Hu M, Polyak K: Microenvironmental regulation of cancer development. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2008, 18:27-34.
• [6]Sultan M, Schulz MH, Richard H, Magen A, Klingenhoff A, Scherf M, Seifert M, Borodina T, Soldatov A, Parkhomchuk D, Schmidt D, O’Keeffe S, Haas S, Vingron M, Lehrach H, Yaspo M-L: A global view of gene activity and alternative splicing by deep sequencing of the human transcriptome. Science 2008, 321:956-960.
• [7]Arendt L, Rudnick J, Keller P: Stroma in breast development and disease. Seminars in cell & … 2010.
• [8]Schena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO: Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science 1995, 270:467-470.
• [9]Cleator SJ, Powles TJ, Dexter T, Fulford L, Mackay A, Smith IE, Valgeirsson H, Ashworth A, Dowsett M: The effect of the stromal component of breast tumours on prediction of clinical outcome using gene expression microarray analysis. Breast Cancer Res 2006, 8:R32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Flicek P, Amode MR, Barrell D, Beal K, Brent S, Carvalho-Silva D, Clapham P, Coates G, Fairley S, Fitzgerald S, Gil L, Gordon L, Hendrix M, Hourlier T, Johnson N, Kähäri AK, Keefe D, Keenan S, Kinsella R, Komorowska M, Koscielny G, Kulesha E, Larsson P, Longden I, McLaren W, Muffato M, Overduin B, Pignatelli M, Pritchard B, Riat HS: Ensembl 2012. Nucleic Acids Res 2012, 40:D84-90.
• [11]Wang M, Master SR, Chodosh LA: Computational expression deconvolution in a complex mammalian organ. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7:328. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Trapnell C, Salzberg SL: How to map billions of short reads onto genomes. Nat Biotechnol 2009, 27:455-457.
• [13]Koh W-P, Yuan J-M, Sun C-L, van den Berg D, Seow A, Lee H-P, Yu MC: Angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) gene polymorphism and breast cancer risk among Chinese women in Singapore. Cancer Res 2003, 63:573-578.
• [14]Trapnell C, Pachter L, Salzberg SL: TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:1105-1111.
• [15]Morton CL, Houghton PJ: Establishment of human tumor xenografts in immunodeficient mice. Nat Protoc 2007, 2:247-250.
• [16]Breidenbach M, Rein DT, Schöndorf T, Khan KN, Herrmann I, Schmidt T, Reynolds PN, Vlodavsky I, Haviv YS, Curiel DT: A new targeting approach for breast cancer gene therapy using the heparanase promoter. Cancer Lett 2006, 240:114-122.
• [17]Fend F, Raffeld M: Laser capture microdissection in pathology. J Clin Pathol 2000, 53:666-672.
• [18]Kent WJ, Sugnet CW, Furey TS, Roskin KM, Pringle TH, Zahler AM, Haussler D: The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res 2002, 12:996-1006.
• [19]Schlange T, Matsuda Y, Lienhard S, Huber A, Hynes NE: Autocrine WNT signaling contributes to breast cancer cell proliferation via the canonical WNT pathway and EGFR transactivation. Breast Cancer Res 2007, 9:R63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Gosink MM, Petrie HT, Tsinoremas NF: Electronically subtracting expression patterns from a mixed cell population. Bioinformatics 2007, 23:3328-3334.
• [21]Tarazona S, García-Alcalde F, Dopazo J, Ferrer A, Conesa A: Differential expression in RNA-seq: a matter of depth. Genome Res 2011, 21:2213-2223.
• [22]Schmandt R, Liu SK, McGlade CJ: Cloning and characterization of mPAL, a novel Shc SH2 domain-binding protein expressed in proliferating cells. Oncogene 1999, 18:1867-1879.
• [23]Zhao Y, Simon R: Gene expression deconvolution in clinical samples. Genome Med 2010, 2:93. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M: RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet 2009, 10:57-63.
• [25]Li H, Durbin R: Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:589-595.
• [26]Trapnell C, Williams BA, Pertea G, Mortazavi A, Kwan G, van Baren MJ, Salzberg SL, Wold BJ, Pachter L: Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nat Biotechnol 2010, 28:511-515.
• [27]Blake JA, Richardson JE, Bult CJ, Kadin JA, Eppig JT, Mouse Genome Database Group: MGD: the Mouse Genome Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31:193-195.
• [28]Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, Jones SJ, Marra MA: Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res 2009, 19:1639-1645.
• [29]Pruitt KD, Harrow J, Harte RA, Wallin C, Diekhans M, Maglott DR, Searle S, Farrell CM, Loveland JE, Ruef BJ, Hart E, Suner M-M, Landrum MJ, Aken B, Ayling S, Baertsch R, Fernandez-Banet J, Cherry JL, Curwen V, Dicuccio M, Kellis M, Lee J, Lin MF, Schuster M, Shkeda A, Amid C, Brown G, Dukhanina O, Frankish A, Hart J: The consensus coding sequence (CCDS) project: Identifying a common protein-coding gene set for the human and mouse genomes. Genome Res 2009, 19:1316-1323.
• [30]Vani G, Vanisree AJ, Shyamaladevi CS: Histone H1 inhibits the proliferation of MCF 7 and MDA MB 231 human breast cancer cells. Cell Biol Int 2006, 30:326-331.
• [31]Kalluri R, Weinberg RA: The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest 2009, 119:1420-1428.
• [32]Hollier BG, Evans K, Mani SA: The epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cells: a coalition against cancer therapies. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2009, 14:29-43.
• [33]Garber K: Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is important to metastasis, but questions remain. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100:232-3-239.
• [34]Sethi S, Sarkar FH, Ahmed Q, Bandyopadhyay S, Nahleh ZA, Semaan A, Sakr W, Munkarah A, Ali-Fehmi R: Molecular markers of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition are associated with tumor aggressiveness in breast carcinoma. Transl Oncol 2011, 4:222-226.
• [35]Bianchini G, Qi Y, Alvarez RH, Iwamoto T, Coutant C, Ibrahim NK, Valero V, Cristofanilli M, Green MC, Radvanyi L, Hatzis C, Hortobagyi GN, Andre F, Gianni L, Symmans WF, Pusztai L: Molecular anatomy of breast cancer stroma and its prognostic value in estrogen receptor-positive and -negative cancers. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:4316-4323.
• [36]Bacac M, Provero P, Mayran N, Stehle J-C, Fusco C, Stamenkovic I: A mouse stromal response to tumor invasion predicts prostate and breast cancer patient survival. PLoS ONE 2006, 1:e32.
• [37]Dozier JH, Hiser L, Davis JA, Thomas NS, Tucci MA, Benghuzzi HA, Frankfurter A, Correia JJ, Lobert S: Beta class II tubulin predominates in normal and tumor breast tissues. Breast Cancer Res 2003, 5:R157-R169. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Finak G, Bertos N, Pepin F, Sadekova S, Souleimanova M, Zhao H, Chen H, Omeroglu G, Meterissian S, Omeroglu A, Hallett M, Park M: Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nat Med 2008, 14:518-527.
• [39]Liberzon A, Subramanian A, Pinchback R, Thorvaldsdóttir H, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP: Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 2011, 27:1739-1740.
• [40]Iorns E, Clarke J, Ward T, Dean S, Lippman M: Simultaneous analysis of tumor and stromal gene expression profiles from xenograft models. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012, 131:321-324.