* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Supplementary Information
DNA vaccination wikipedia , lookup
Extrachromosomal DNA wikipedia , lookup
Transposable element wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
No-SCAR (Scarless Cas9 Assisted Recombineering) Genome Editing wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Molecular Inversion Probe wikipedia , lookup
Copy-number variation wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Human genome wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics wikipedia , lookup
Comparative genomic hybridization wikipedia , lookup
X-inactivation wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Genomic library wikipedia , lookup
Primary transcript wikipedia , lookup
Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Non-coding DNA wikipedia , lookup
Long non-coding RNA wikipedia , lookup
DNA methylation wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Epigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics in stem-cell differentiation wikipedia , lookup
Oncogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics in learning and memory wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Polycomb Group Proteins and Cancer wikipedia , lookup
Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup
Cancer epigenetics wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of diabetes Type 2 wikipedia , lookup
Mir-92 microRNA precursor family wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Bisulfite sequencing wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
List of Supplementary Information Supplemental Methods Supplemental Figure 1 Supplemental Tables 1-7 Supplemental Methods DNA methlyation profiling The Illumina Infinium Human Methylation 27 BeadChip was used to generate DNA methylation profiles for the 20 PDAC and HPDE cell lines (1). This array interrogates the state of DNA methylation at over 27,000 CpG sites associated with the proximal promoter regions of ~14,000 genes annotated by the NCBI Database Genome Build 36. Two bead types for each CpG locus are present on the BeadChip to assess CpG methylation - the unmethylated bead is complementary to the unmethylated CpG site (which becomes TpG after bisulfite treatment) while the methylated bead type is complementary to the methylated CpG site (which remains CpG after bisulfite treatment). One microgram of genomic DNA was bisulfite converted (bisulfite treatment converts unmethylated cytosine bases into uracil but does not change methylated cytosines) and applied to the BeadChip. Hybridization of bisulfite DNA with complementary beads on the chip results in single-base extension which incorporates a labeled dideoxy nucleotide. The chip is then stained with a fluorescent reagent to produce a measureable signal captured by scanning. Illumina BeadStudio software was used to perform average normalization across arrays, which scales signal intensities for probes such that the mean array intensity is the same for each array, and therefore comparable across samples. The percent methylation at each CpG locus is then calculated (methylated signal divided by total signal), and this metric is termed the β-value. For each cell line, we calculated the difference in β-value between the PDAC line and HPDE, (β-value PDAC - β-value HPDE) to determine the β-value difference. Positive and negative β-value differences reflect hypermethylation (more methylated in PDAC) and hypomethylation (less methylated in PDAC), respectively. Since we were looking for tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) we were interested in hypermethylated genes. We defined genes as hypermethylated if the β-value difference was in the 95th percentile of all β-value differences calculated, which corresponded to a 54% difference in methylation between PDAC and HPDE. DNA copy number profiling Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) was performed using the submegabase resolution tiling (SMRT) array on all PDAC cell lines as previously described (2, 3). Equal amounts of genomic DNA from PDAC lines and a normal male reference were differentially labeled and hybridized to the SMRT array, which contains over 26,000 overlapping bacterial artificial chromosomes present in duplicate spanning the entire genome. Arrays were scanned with the Axon Gene Pix 4000B scanner and analyzed using GenePixPro 6.1 software. Normalization to remove systematic array biases was performed using CGHnorm (4). Sigma2 software was used to combine duplicates and remove replicate spots with a standard deviation over 0.075 or signal to noise ratio below three (5, 6). SMRT array probes were mapped according to the coordinates of the March 2006 (hg18) genome build. 1 Segmental regions of copy number gain and loss were calculated based on array log2 ratios (intensity of PDAC line/normal male reference) using the segmentation algorithm FACADE (7) with the following parameters: log2 ratio delta (log2 ratio threshold for calling gains and losses) = ±0.1, amplification log2 ratio threshold = 0.8, deletion log2 ratio threshold = -0.5, baseline distribution (smoothing window size) = 10kbp, and p-value threshold = 0.05. The output of FACADE is list of copy number alterations in each sample profiled. Gene expression profiling RNA extracted from each PDAC line and HPDE was subjected to expression profiling on the Agilent 4x44K Whole Genome Microarray, which measures expression levels for over 41,000 transcripts spanning ~30,000 genes. Arrays were conducted according to the Agilent protocol. Briefly, one microgram of total RNA was converted into cRNA and labeled with Cy3 during amplification. Arrays were washed and scanned after 17 hours of hybridization. Hybridized arrays were scanned using an Axon Gene Pix 4000B scanner and signal intensities were extracted using GenePixPro 6.1 software. Probe intensities were corrected by subtracting background intensity and normalized using median array normalization, where each background-subtracted intensity was divided by the median intensity of all non-control probes on the array. To classify genes as under or over expressed, the fold change in expression between each PDAC line and HPDE was calculated for each probe. Since we were looking for downregulation of potential TSGs, we considered genes with a fold change (PDAC expression/HPDE expression) less than 0.5 (2-fold underexpression or greater) underexpressed. In order to reduce the potential overestimation of underexpression calls due to poor probe performance, we removed the bottom 2% of expression values in HPDE. Profiles for Capan2 cells engineered to express SOX15 and corresponding controls (see below) were generated on HT-12 v4 Beadchips, which measure expression levels of over ~47,000 unique transcripts (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Capan2-EV and Capan2-SOX15 were each profiled twice using total RNA from different extractions. Background subtracted data were robust spline normalized using BRB array tools to generate log2 transformed normalized data (8). Replicate arrays were averaged and the average fold change between Capan2-EV and Capan2-SOX15 cells was calculated for each probe (8). A pre-ranked GSEA was performed on fold change data using the C3 transcription factor target v2.5 gene set to determine whether TCF/LEF (Wnt responsive) transcription factor target genes were affected by SOX15 expression (9). For this analysis genes were ranked based on the magnitude of fold change (Capan2EV/Capan2-SOX15) and subsequently compared against an annotated list of TCF/LEF transcription factor target genes to determine if genes with highly ranked fold changes were significantly enriched for TCF/LEF target genes. Data integration and candidate gene filtering In order to analyze the copy number, methylation and expression status for all genes across all samples, we created a matrix comprised of each of these dimensions of data. Our input files were matrices with DNA methylation, DNA copy number, and gene expression status for each gene in each sample. First, we mapped DNA methylation probes into copy number segments by their genomic coordinates. This enabled us to link DNA methylation and copy number status for each gene annotated on the methylation array, which was the limiting array in terms of number of genes assayed. Next, we aligned gene expression to the DNA methylation/copy number matrix by RefSeq gene symbols. Using this 2 approach, we were able to assess copy number, methylation, and gene expression for approximately 12,000 genes that were common to all platforms. This matrix facilitated the identification of genes showing two-hit inactivation (concurrent hypermethylation, copy number loss and underexpression). The following is a stepwise description of the filtering process used to identify the 24 candidate TSGs used for Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. 1. Identify genes that are hypermethylated in at least 30% of PDAC lines (Result: 1310 unique genes) 2. Of the candidates identified in 1, identify those that are concurrently hypermethylated and underexpressed in at least 30% of PDAC lines (Result: 247 unique genes) 3. Of the candidates identified in 2, identify those that are concurrently hypermethylated and deleted and underexpressed in at least 15% of PDAC lines (Result: 91 unique genes) 4. Of the candidates identified in 3, identify those that show significant underexpression (U test p < 0.05) in clinical PDAC tumours relative to non-malignant pancreas tissues in both of two publically available expression datasets (Result: 24 unique genes) For scenarios where there were multiple probes for the same gene on the methylation and expression platforms, the probe combination with the highest two-hit frequency was moved forward in our analysis and is represented in Supplemental Table 5. Western blotting antibodies and conditions Western blots were performed as previously described (3). Primary Antibody Blocking Solution Primary Antibody Dilution and Conditions Secondary Antibody Sheep-antiSOX15 Mouse-antiactive β-catenin Mouse-antiACTB Rabbit-antiGAPDH 5% BSA 0.1 µg/ml in 5% BSA Anti-Sheep Secondary Antibody Dilution and Conditions 1:1000 in 5% BSA 5% milk 0.2 µg/ml in 5% milk Anti-Mouse 1:2000 in 5% milk 5% milk 1:5000 in 5% milk Anti-Mouse 1:5000 in 5% milk 5% BSA 1:20,000 in 5% BSA Anti-Rabbit 1:5000 in 5% BSA Cell viability experiments The MTT assay was used to assess viability in cells stably expressing SOX15. Three thousand cells were plated in triplicate in 96 well plates along with three wells seeded with growth media only for correction of background absorbance. For each of five consecutive days, 10 µl of MTT reagent (3-(4,5dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) was added to each well, and four hours later, 100 µl of 20% SDS was added to each well to solubilize the formazan precipitate. The following day, 3 plates were quantified on an EMax plate reader (Molecular Devices) by measuring absorbance at 570 nm with reference to 650 nm. The average absorbance of media only control wells were subtracted from each well with cells to perform background correction. A t-test was used to compare absorbance values between EV and SOX15 cells. Measurements for each of the five consecutive days were plotted to visualize cell viability. 4 Supplemental Figure (eps files) Supplemental Figure 1. Schematic illustrating the canonical Wnt pathway and components with twohits identified in this study (highlighted in green). 5 Supplemental Tables (excel files) Supplemental Table 1. List of the 1752 CpG probes (1310 genes) hypermethylated in at least 30% of PDAC cell lines. Supplemental Table 2. List of the 247 genes hypermethylated and underexpressed in at least 30% of PDAC cell lines. Supplemental Table 3. List of copy number segments identified in the 20 PDAC cell lines. Supplemental Table 4. List of recurrent copy number losses in 20 PDAC cell lines. Supplemental Table 5. List of 91 two-hit genes in 20 PDAC cell lines. Supplemental Table 6. Gene expression profiles for Capan2-EV and Capan2-SOX15 cells. Capan2 cells were profiled in duplicate. Normalized values (log2 transformed) are presented. Supplemental Table 7. Top 20 up and down-regulated genes in Capan2-EV relative to Capan2-SOX15. Capan2 cells were profiled in duplicate. The average of normalized values (log2 transformed) and average fold change (Capan2-EV/Capan2-SOX15) are presented. 6 References 1. Bibikova M, Lin Z, Zhou L, Chudin E, Garcia EW, Wu B, et al. High-throughput DNA methylation profiling using universal bead arrays. Genome research. 2006;16(3):383-93. Epub 2006/02/02. 2. Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, Watson SK, DeLeeuw RJ, Chi B, Coe BP, et al. A tiling resolution DNA microarray with complete coverage of the human genome. Nature genetics. 2004;36(3):299-303. Epub 2004/02/26. 3. Lockwood WW, Thu KL, Lin L, Pikor LA, Chari R, Lam WL, et al. Integrative Genomics Identified RFC3 As an Amplified Candidate Oncogene in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2012;18(7):1936-46. Epub 2012/02/14. 4. Khojasteh M, Lam WL, Ward RK, MacAulay C. A stepwise framework for the normalization of array CGH data. BMC bioinformatics. 2005;6:274. Epub 2005/11/22. 5. Chari R, Coe BP, Wedseltoft C, Benetti M, Wilson IM, Vucic EA, et al. SIGMA2: a system for the integrative genomic multi-dimensional analysis of cancer genomes, epigenomes, and transcriptomes. BMC bioinformatics. 2008;9:422. Epub 2008/10/09. 6. Chari R, Lockwood WW, Coe BP, Chu A, Macey D, Thomson A, et al. SIGMA: a system for integrative genomic microarray analysis of cancer genomes. BMC genomics. 2006;7:324. Epub 2006/12/29. 7. Coe BP, Chari R, MacAulay C, Lam WL. FACADE: a fast and sensitive algorithm for the segmentation and calling of high resolution array CGH data. Nucleic acids research. 2010;38(15):e157. Epub 2010/06/17. 8. Simon R, Lam A, Li MC, Ngan M, Menenzes S, Zhao Y. Analysis of gene expression data using BRB-ArrayTools. Cancer informatics. 2007;3:11-7. Epub 2007/01/01. 9. Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005;102(43):1554550. Epub 2005/10/04. 7