title: Mechanisms of chromosomal instability in melanoma.
abstract: A systems biology approach was applied to investigate the mechanisms of chromosomal instability in melanoma cell lines. Chromosomal instability was quantified using array comparative genomic hybridization to identify somatic copy number alterations (deletions and duplications). Primary human melanocytes displayed an average of 8.5 alterations per cell primarily representing known polymorphisms. Melanoma cell lines displayed 25 to 131 alterations per cell, with an average of 68, indicative of chromosomal instability. Copy number alterations included approximately equal numbers of deletions and duplications with greater numbers of hemizygous (-1,+1) alterations than homozygous (-2,+2). Melanoma oncogenes, such as BRAF and MITF, and tumor suppressor genes, such as CDKN2A/B and PTEN, were included in these alterations. Duplications and deletions were functional as there were significant correlations between DNA copy number and mRNA expression for these genes. Spectral karyotype analysis of three lines confirmed extensive chromosomal instability with polyploidy, aneuploidy, deletions, duplications, and chromosome rearrangements. Bioinformatic analysis identified a signature of gene expression that was correlated with chromosomal instability but this signature provided no clues to the mechanisms of instability. The signature failed to generate a significant (P = 0.105) prediction of melanoma progression in a separate dataset. Chromosomal instability was not correlated with elements of DNA damage response (DDR) such as radiosensitivity, nucleotide excision repair, expression of the DDR biomarkers γH2AX and P-CHEK2, nor G1 or G2 checkpoint function. Chromosomal instability in melanoma cell lines appears to influence gene function but it is not simply explained by alterations in the system of DDR.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
authors.forename: William K
authors.initials: WK
authors.lastname: Kaufmann
authors.forename: Craig C
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Carson
authors.forename: Bernard
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Omolo
authors.forename: Adam J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Filgo
authors.forename: Maria J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Sambade
authors.forename: Dennis A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Simpson
authors.forename: Janiel M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Shields
authors.forename: Joseph G
authors.initials: JG
authors.lastname: Ibrahim
authors.forename: Nancy E
authors.initials: NE
authors.lastname: Thomas
mesh_terms: D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D043171:Chromosomal Instability / Q000235:genetics*; D055028:Comparative Genomic Hybridization; D019295:Computational Biology; D056915:DNA Copy Number Variations / Q000235:genetics; D004249:DNA Damage / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007621:Karyotyping; D008545:Melanoma / Q000235:genetics*; D009857:Oncogenes / Q000235:genetics; D049490:Systems Biology / Q000379:methods*
keywords: DNA damage response; checkpoint; genetic instability; melanoma; prognosis; repair