Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jul;9(3):305-14.
doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060170.

Evaluation of markers for CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer by a large population-based sample

Shuji Ogino  1 , Takako Kawasaki, Gregory J Kirkner, Peter Kraft, Massimo Loda, Charles S Fuchs
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluation of markers for CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer by a large population-based sample

Shuji Ogino et al. J Mol Diagn. 2007 Jul.

Abstract

The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP or CIMP-high) with extensive promoter methylation is a distinct phenotype in colorectal cancer. However, a choice of markers for CIMP has been controversial. A recent extensive investigation has selected five methylation markers (CACNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3, and SOCS1) as surrogate markers for epigenomic aberrations in tumor. The use of these markers as a CIMP-specific panel needs to be validated by an independent, large dataset. Using MethyLight assays on 920 colorectal cancers from two large prospective cohort studies, we quantified DNA methylation in eight CIMP-specific markers [the above five plus CDKN2A (p16), CRABP1, and MLH1]. A CIMP-high cutoff was set at > or = 6/8 or > or = 5/8 methylated promoters, based on tumor distribution and BRAF/KRAS mutation frequencies. All but two very specific markers [MLH1 (98% specific) and SOCS1 (93% specific)] demonstrated > or = 85% sensitivity and > or = 80% specificity, indicating overall good concordance in methylation patterns and good performance of these markers. Based on sensitivity, specificity, and false positives and negatives, the eight markers were ranked in order as: RUNX3, CACNA1G, IGF2, MLH1, NEUROG1, CRABP1, SOCS1, and CDKN2A. In conclusion, a panel of markers including at least RUNX3, CACNA1G, IGF2, and MLH1 can serve as a sensitive and specific marker panel for CIMP-high.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
BRAF and KRAS mutation frequencies according to number of methylated promoters. A: Tumors with ≥6/8 methylated promoters show high BRAF mutation rates, whereas tumors with ≤5/8 methylated promoters show high KRAS mutation rates. B: MSI-H tumors distribute bimodally, and the frequencies of KRAS and BRAF mutations clearly distinguish CIMP-high tumors from CIMP-low tumors. C: MSI-L/MSS tumors can be separated into CIMP-high (≥6/8 methylated promoters) and CIMP-low/0 (≤4/8 methylated promoters) based on the frequencies of BRAF and KRAS mutations. Tumors with 5/8 methylated promoters reside on the borderline between CIMP-high and CIMP-low.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sensitivity, specificity, and cross-panel classification error rate against panel 8. Panel 1 (RUNX3 only) through panel 7 contain incrementing numbers of markers, adding one by one from CACNA1G, IGF2, MLH1, NEUROG1, CRABP1, and SOCS1. Panel 8 contains all eight markers including CDKN2A. A: Specificity generally increases with an increasing number of markers. Sensitivity depends on the number of markers and a CIMP-high cutoff. B: The classification error rate decreases with an increasing number of markers.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Frequencies of right-sided tumors (A), poorly differentiated tumors (B), and mucinous tumors (C) in various MSI/CIMP subtypes of colorectal cancer. Gray and open bar graphs indicate frequencies of each feature in MSI/CIMP subtypes determined by CIMP panel 4 and CIMP panel 8, respectively. Note that there were no substantial differences in the features examined (anatomical location, tumor grade, or mucinous features) between classifications determined by CIMP panel 4 and panel 8.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Laird PW. Cancer epigenetics. Hum Mol Genet. 2005;14(Spec No 1):R65–R76. - PubMed
    1. Issa JP. CpG island methylator phenotype in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:988–993. - PubMed
    1. Baylin SB, Ohm JE. Epigenetic gene silencing in cancer—a mechanism for early oncogenic pathway addiction? Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:107–116. - PubMed
    1. Toyota M, Ahuja N, Ohe-Toyota M, Herman JG, Baylin SB, Issa JP. CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:8681–8686. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Toyota M, Ohe-Toyota M, Ahuja N, Issa JP. Distinct genetic profiles in colorectal tumors with or without the CpG island methylator phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:710–715. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms