![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © American Society for Investigative Pathology Contrasting Genome-Wide Distribution of 8-Hydroxyguanine and Acrolein-Modified Adenine during Oxidative Stress-Induced Renal Carcinogenesis From the Department of Pathology and Biology of Diseases,* Graduate School of Medicine, and the Department of Mathematics,‡‡ Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto; Japan Institute for the Control of Aging,‡ Fukuroi; Medical Proteomics,§ and Inflammation and Immunology,¶ Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto; Department of Environmental Oncology, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kita-Kyushu; Department of Immunobiology and Neuroscience,** Division of Neurofunctional Genomics, Medical Institute of Bioregulation, Kyushu University, Fukuoka; the Laboratory of Food and Biodynamics,†† Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan; and Laboratory of Biochemistry and Biophysics,† Butanten Institute, São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilAccepted July 12, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Oxidative stress is a persistent threat to the genome and is associated with major causes of human mortality, including cancer, atherosclerosis, and aging. Here we established a method to generate libraries of genomic DNA fragments containing oxidatively modified bases by using specific monoclonal antibodies to immunoprecipitate enzyme-digested genome DNA. We applied this technique to two different base modifications, 8-hydroxyguanine and 1,N6-propanoadenine (acrotein-Ade), in a ferric nitrilotriacetate-induced murine renal carcinogenesis model. Renal cortical genomic DNA derived from 10- to 12-week-old male C57BL/6 mice, of untreated control or 6 hours after intraperitoneal injection of 3 mg iron/kg ferric nitrilotriacetate, was enzyme digested, immunoprecipitated, cloned, and mapped to each chromosome. The results revealed that distribution of the two modified bases was not random but differed in terms of chromosomes, gene size, and expression, which could be partially explained by chromosomal territory. In the wild-type mice, low GC content areas were more likely to harbor the two modified bases. Knockout of OGG1, a repair enzyme for genomic 8-hydroxyguanine, increased the amounts of acrolein-Ade as determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses. This versatile technique would introduce a novel research area as a high-throughput screening method for critical genomic loci under oxidative stress. Oxygen is essential for efficient energy production in aerobes. However, reactive oxygen species generated during this energy production represent a persistent threat to the integrity of the genome. Indeed, oxidative stress is associated with major causes of human mortality including cancer and atherosclerosis.1 Reactive oxygen species react with the genomic DNA to cause strand scission, cross-links, or base modifications,2 with base modifications thought to be the most frequent.3 Guanine base exposed either to hydroxyl radical, singlet oxygen, or photodynamic action is hydroxylated at C-8, leading to the formation of 8-hydroxyguanine (8-OHGua),4 which is present at a frequency of ~1 in 105–6 guanine bases in the genomic DNA of various tissues under control conditions.5 Other modified guanine bases such as 2,6-diamino-4-hydroxy-5-formamidopyrimidine (FapyG) may be produced via hydroxyl radicals.6 8-OHGua in the genome may cause G to T transversion-type mutations during DNA replication.7 Thus far, three distinct repair enzymes (OGG1, MUTYH, and MTH1) have been identified to function at different levels to repair or prevent 8-OHGua in the genome. Germ-line mutations in MUTYH have been associated with recessive inheritance of multiple colorectal adenomas.8,9 Knockout of these repair enzymes in mice have been shown to produce a phenotype of higher cancer incidence.10–12 We have been studying the molecular mechanisms of how reactive oxygen species induce cancer using an iron-mediated rodent renal carcinogenesis model. Our recent genetic analyses identified p16INK4A tumor suppressor gene as a major target gene, and we proposed a hypothesis that fragile sites exist in the genome against oxidative stress.13,14 Thus far, to the best of our knowledge, genome-wide screening for the detection of sites vulnerable to oxidative stress has not been undertaken. This study aimed to establish a method to generate libraries of genomic DNA fragments containing oxidatively modified bases and to use the method to reveal common rules therein. We applied and optimized an immunoprecipitation technique for this purpose. In addition to 8-OHGua, we selected an aldehyde-modified adenine, 1,N6-propanoadenine, which is produced by the reaction of acrolein and adenine.15 Acrolein, a major lipid peroxidation product, is chemically reactive and mutagenic and may be one of the second messengers of oxidative stress.16 Previously, we produced and characterized monoclonal antibodies recognizing either 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG)17 or 1,N6-propano-2′-deoxyadenosine (acrolein-dA).15 Here we examined whether it was possible to specifically immunoprecipitate DNA fragments (DnaIP) containing these two different modified bases and whether there is any principle underlying the distribution of these modified bases in vivo in the genome of renal cortical cells in an oxidative stress (ferric nitrilotriacetate)-induced carcinogenesis model of rodents.18–22 Materials and Methods Animal Experiments Male C57BL/6 mice (10 to 12 weeks old; Charles River Japan, Tokyo, Japan) were maintained in a specific pathogen-free environment. Twenty-four animals were divided into three groups of 18, three, and three animals, respectively, consisting of a time course group, untreated control group, and ferric nitrilotriacetate (Fe-NTA) group. Animals of the time course group were used for the selection of timing appropriate for the immunoprecipitation analyses, ie, not too much cellular necrosis but high genomic content of 8-OHdG and acrolein-dA as evaluated by high-performance liquid chromatography and/or immunohistochemistry. The animals received an intraperitoneal injection of 3 mg of iron/kg of Fe-NTA prepared immediately before use23 and were sacrificed at the indicated time after injection (n = 3, untreated, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 hours after injection; 6 hours was used for immunoprecipitation). Male OGG1 knockout mice (C57BL/6 background)11 of the same age were used (n = 3 for each time course group, untreated control, and Fe-NTA groups). The institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Kyoto University approved all of the animal experimentation protocols. Monoclonal Antibodies Immunoprecipitation of Oligomeric DNA A double-stranded 22-bp oligonucleotide containing one 8-OHdG paired with deoxycytidine on the complementary strand was prepared and labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) at the 5′-end of the (+) strand (FITC-5′-GGTGGCCTGACG*CATTCCCCAA-3′; *, 8-OHdG).24 A double-stranded 22-bp oligonucleotide with the same sequence except without 8-OHdG worked as a control. One hundred fmol of the double-stranded 22-bp oligonucleotide was incubated at 4°C overnight with 0.1 or 100 μg of N45.1 monoclonal antibody in 10 mmol/L phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) in a 50-μl volume, followed by mixing with 50 μl of protein A Sepharose CL-4B (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Tokyo, Japan) and incubation on ice for 1 hour. After washing with 100 mmol/L HEPES buffer (pH 8.0), the Sepharose beads were separated by centrifugation, lyophilized, and dissolved in 20 μl of loading buffer [80% formamide, 10 mmol/L NaOH, and 1 mmol/L ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)]. The solution was then denatured by heating at 95°C for 5 minutes. The sample solution was applied to a 20% denaturing polyacrylamide gel containing 8 mol/L urea in 1× Tris-borate EDTA buffer and electrophoresed at 10 W for 30 minutes at room temperature. After electrophoresis, the fluorescence intensity of each band was evaluated using FMBio-100 (TakaraBio, Shiga, Japan). Genomic DNA Extraction and Production of 8-OHGua in the Genomic DNA Nuclear genomic DNA was extracted from mouse renal cortical samples by the NaI method (Wako, Osaka, Japan).25 Each solution was saturated with argon gas and supplemented with desferal (final concentration, 0.1 mmol/L) where applicable to prevent further DNA oxidation. To increase the 8-OHdG level without inducing strand breaks, genomic DNA (100 μg/ml; 10 mmol/L Tris-HCl buffer, pH 8.0) in the presence of 5 to 50 mmol/L methylene blue and 0.1 mmol/L desferal was incubated under a 60 W electric bulb (12-cm distance) for 30 minutes as described.26 This procedure increased the amounts of 8-OHdG up to ~1000-fold. 8-OHdG Determination The amount of 8-OHdG in DNA was estimated after nuclease P1 and alkaline phosphatase treatment by high-performance liquid chromatography with an electrochemical detector as described17 with the following minor modification. Desferal (final concentration, 0.1 mmol/L) was added before nuclease P1 digestion. Differential Separation Analysis A pGL3-catalase promoter vector27 was digested with BamHI and HindIII to produce 1.7-, 1.9-, and 4.4-kb fragments (vector-1). Another vector containing a cloned genomic DNA fragment (pCR4BluntTOPO-0078) was digested with EcoRI and KpnI to produce 0.4-, 1.1-, 2.0-, and 3.9-kb fragments (vector-2). DNA fragments from the former vector were treated with methylene blue and light to increase the level of 8-OHdG by ~500-fold. Equal amounts of both of the DNA fragment preparations were mixed and subjected to DnaIP. Recovered DNA fragments were cloned and identified either by size or by sequencing with an ABI Prism 377 sequencer (Tokyo, Japan). Immunoprecipitation of Genomic DNA Genomic DNA was digested either with HaeIII (GG/CC) for library construction or with Sau96I (G/GNCC) for amplification in quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experiments. An aliquot of genomic DNA fragments (20 μg for chromosome mapping; 30 μg for amplification in quantitative PCR experiments) was incubated with each antibody (10 μg of N45.1 or 2 μg of mAb 21) in 10 mmol/L phosphate-buffered saline containing 0.1% bovine serum albumin for 3 hours at 4°C in a 900-μl volume, mixed with 100 μl of Dynabeads M-280 sheep anti-mouse IgG (Dynal, Oslo, Norway) and incubated for another 3 hours. The beads were then washed sequentially with four different buffers (buffer 1: 0.1% sodium deoxycholate, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mmol/L EDTA, 50 mmol/L HEPES-KOH, 140 mmol/L NaCl, pH 7.5; buffer 2: 0.1% sodium deoxycholate, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mmol/L EDTA, 50 mmol/L HEPES-KOH, 500 mmol/L NaCl, pH 7.5; buffer 3: 0.1% sodium deoxycholate, 0.5% Nonidet P-40, 1 mmol/L EDTA, 250 mmol/L LiCl, and 10 mmol/L Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; buffer 4: 1× TE). The beads were incubated with 80 μl of elution buffer (10 mmol/L EDTA, 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate, and 50 mmol/L Tris-HCl, pH 8.0) at 65°C for 10 minutes. This procedure was performed twice. For cloning only, the eluent was treated with calf intestinal alkaline phophatase (TakaraBio). Then, the recovered DNA was digested with proteinase K at 37°C for 1 hour, subjected to phenol-chloroform extraction, and precipitated with ethanol. The amounts of recovered DNA were quantified by the Saran Wrap method using ethidium bromide.28 Cloning and Chromosome Mapping Cloning was done with a Zero Blunt TOPO PCR cloning kit for sequencing (Invitrogen, Tokyo, Japan) as suggested by the manufacturer, and the cloned fragments were sequenced with an ABI Prism 377 sequencer. The locations of the cloned fragments on chromosomes were assigned according to the May 2004 assembly of the mouse genome (NCBI m33 build) at UCSC (http://www.genome.ucsc.edu/). RefSeq database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/RefSeq/) was also used as a reference. Gene Expression Analysis Mouse Genome 430, 2.0 Arrays (Affymetrix Inc., Santa Clara, CA) were used. Total RNA was isolated using a RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen, Tokyo, Japan). Pooled RNA from three animals of each group was analyzed. The degree of gene expression was then evaluated with Affymetrix GeneChip operating software (GCOS). Fragment Amplification and Quantitative PCR Analysis Immunoprecipitated DNA fragments were amplified by PCR after ligation with an adaptor (Sau96I, 5′-GNCTGCGGTGA-3′ and 5′-AGCACTCTCCAGCCTCTCACCGCA-3′; underline, complementary sequence; Ligation pack, Nippon Gene, Toyama, Japan) and then subjected to exonuclease I treatment and phenol-chloroform extraction as described.29 The amplified DNA fragments were subjected to quantitation using an ABI 7300 real-time PCR system with the specific primer pairs shown in Table 1. One or two primer pairs were prepared for each gene or intergenic area, and the mean value was used as a result when two primer pairs were selected. The corresponding genomic DNA after Sau96I digestion and amplification was used as a control. The final results were adjusted by the amounts of immunoprecipitated DNA fragments.
Analysis of Chromosomal Territory A touch preparation of renal cortex was obtained as previously described. More than 90% were nuclei of proximal tubular cells.30 The specimens were subjected to fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis with chromosome painting probes according to the manufacturer’s instructions (dual-color biotin/Texas Red-FITC; Cambio, Cambridge, UK) and were observed with a confocal laser microscope (Fluoview; Olympus, Osaka, Japan). The center of gravity of the nucleus and that of the chromosome were measured to assign the relative radial location. Histology and Immunohistochemistry Histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed as previously described.15,17 Neutral formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections were used with the avidin-biotin complex method (primary antibody concentration: N45.1, 10 μg/ml; mAb 21, 1.3 μg/ml). Three registered pathologists (T.S., T.T., and S.T.) conducted all of the pathological analyses. Results Specificity of DnaIP for Modified DNA Bases To test our strategy (Figure 1A)
Animal Experiments An oxidative stress-induced mouse model of renal carcinogenesis was used.19 In this model, the Fenton reaction occurs in the renal proximal tubules after an intraperitoneal injection of ferric nitrilotriacetate (Fe-NTA).20 Our quantitation by high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detector showed significantly higher levels of 8-OHdG 6 to 9 hours after an injection of Fe-NTA (Figure 1G) Mapping of Cloned DNA Fragments Containing Oxidatively Modified DNA Bases Fragments ranging 86 to 159 from each animal (n = 3 for each combination of treatment and antibody) were cloned, sequenced, and mapped to chromosomes based on the May 2004 assembly of the mouse genome (NCBI m33 build) at UCSC (http://www.genome.ucsc.edu/) (Figure 2, A and B)
Analysis of Chromosome Territory We selected chromosomes 15 and 16 based on the similarity of physical size and statistical significance of our results (Tables 2 and 3), and performed fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis to localize the chromosome territory during interphase in renal proximal tubular cells (Figure 2C) Genome-Wide Analysis in Association with Genes and Their Expression When we aligned the RefSeq genes (~18,000) along the chromosomes, 27.94% of the mouse genomic areas were covered with their exons and introns. We used this value as a reference. The fraction of DNA fragments containing oxidatively modified bases that landed on RefSeq genes was significantly smaller than the reference probability in the samples of acrolein-dA under oxidative stress by Fe-NTA administration (χ2 test, P = 0.033) (Figure 3A)
Then, we analyzed the distributions of two characteristic properties of the genes in which modifications occurred. Under oxidative stress, the distribution of the expression level of genes was significantly different between the groups for 8-OHdG and acrolein-dA (Figure 3C) Quantitative PCR after DnaIP in The Kidneys of Wild-Type and OGG1 Knockout Mice Our analysis confirmed that the genomic DNA of knockout mice of a repair enzyme gene OGG1,32 which removes genomic 8-OHGua, contained higher levels of 8-OHdG than that of wild-type mice. Furthermore, 8-OHdG was repaired in OGG1 knockout mice as well, and even more rapidly than in wild-type mice (Figure 4A)
We observed a trend (0.05 < P < 0.1), only in the case of wild-type mice, that genomic areas low in GC content were more likely to harbor 8-OHdG or acrolein-dA (Figure 5, A–D)
Discussion The present study shows, for the first time, the existence of fragile sites against oxidative stress in the genome. As far as we know, no attempts have been made to detect fragile sites with respect to oxidative stress in the whole genome, although there have been a few studies on the relative vulnerability of certain DNA bases within a single gene.33,34 We previously hypothesized the presence of fragile sites against oxidative stress in the genome,14 and to test this hypothesis we developed a novel method to collect DNA fragments containing oxidatively modified DNA bases. The antibodies used successfully immunoprecipitated DNA fragments containing each modified base in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 1, E and F) This analysis was made possible by the completion of the mouse genome project.35 When DNA information is considered to be continuous starting from the centromere of chromosome 1 and continuing to the telomere of the chromosome X, there was no significant deviation in the distribution of 8-OHdG or acrolein-dA. However, when the chromosomal restrictions were considered, significant deviations were detected (Tables 2 and 3). The chromosomal units in the nuclei could at least partly explain the results. Therefore, we conclude that the distribution of 8-OHdG or acrolein-dA is not random in the genome. Our results further suggest the importance of a concept called chromosome territories, which posits specific localization of chromosomal areas during interphase.36,37 The increase of acrolein-dA in chromosome 15 after oxidative stress may be explained by the fact that chromosome 15 is located close to the nuclear border (Figure 2, C and D) The fraction of DNA fragments that hit RefSeq gene areas was comparable with the ratio of RefSeq gene to RefSeq nongene areas in the genome, but this was significantly decreased only for acrolein-dA under oxidative stress. Furthermore, acrolein-dA under oxidative stress was observed in genes with larger size and lower expression, whereas 8-OHdG was observed in genes with smaller size and higher expression (Figure 3, C–F) In the selected genomic loci, an absence of OGG1 halted further increase in the 8-OHdG-level under oxidative stress (Figure 4C) There was also a difference in the levels of 8-OHdG and acrolein-dA in the kidney of wild-type mice among the 20 genomic loci studied although it may be too early to deduce certain principles out of these data. The differences in the immunoprecipitation/genome ratio between 8-OHdG and acrolein-dA fragments in the quantitative PCR strategy and the association with genomic GC content (a trend for AT-rich region both in 8-OHdG and acrolein-dA) are to be explained in future works. These results warrant further experiments analyzing local patterns of DNA base modifications and mapping analyses of OGG1 knockout as well as wild-type mice, which would clarify the contribution of formation and repair of oxidatively modified DNA bases. DnaIP is a versatile technique comparable with chromatin immunoprecipitation. It can be applied to any base modification or other kinds of DNA damage if specific antibodies appropriate for immunoprecipitation are available. Especially, this technique can be used not only for in vitro fine experiments but also for in vivo animal experiments regardless of the species used. Additional flexibility is obtained by combining this technique with quantitative PCR or genome chip analyses. There are a few drawbacks with this method: identification of the hot spot sequences with shorter size than those that can be amplified by PCR or hybridized to gene chips is not possible, and plus/minus strands are not differentiated, so after genome-wide screening with this method other techniques may be necessary to accomplish finer evaluation. Although oxidative DNA base modifications have been studied for more than 2 decades, the results have been shown as mere fractional values, and genome-wide information has not been integrated with them. The levels of oxidatively modified DNA bases are the sum of their generation and repair in the genome. Theoretically, with the present method we can evaluate where in the genome certain base modifications have occurred or been repaired at a single-cell level. This research area in close association with the postgenome era has just begun.39 The current study with the two probe modifications produced novel observations that probably reflect three-dimensional and functional aspects of the genome. We believe that this method would greatly contribute to the understanding of pathology associated with oxidative stress. Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Yutaka Kanoh (Riken Gonomic Science Center, Yokohama, Japan), Dr. Hiroshi Hiai, and Dr. Akira Shimizu (Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan) for encouragement and helpful comments; and Ms. Waka Kawaguchi (Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan) and Ms. Katsura Mizushima (Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan) for excellent technical assistance. Footnotes Address reprint requests to Shinya Toyokuni, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Pathology and Biology of Diseases, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. E-mail: toyokuni/at/path1.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp. Supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan (grant-in-aid to S.T.); the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan (grant-in-aid for Cancer Research to S.T.); and the AOA Japan Co. Ltd. Medical Research Foundation (grant for medical research to S.T.). References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Nucleic Acids Res. 1984 Feb 24; 12(4):2137-45.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1984]Mutat Res. 1997 Dec; 387(3):147-63.
[Mutat Res. 1997]Nature. 1991 Jan 31; 349(6308):431-4.
[Nature. 1991]Nat Genet. 2002 Feb; 30(2):227-32.
[Nat Genet. 2002]N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 27; 348(9):791-9.
[N Engl J Med. 2003]Oncogene. 1999 Jun 24; 18(25):3793-7.
[Oncogene. 1999]Am J Pathol. 2002 Feb; 160(2):419-24.
[Am J Pathol. 2002]J Biol Chem. 2003 Dec 12; 278(50):50346-54.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Apr 28; 95(9):4882-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]Lab Invest. 1997 Mar; 76(3):365-74.
[Lab Invest. 1997]J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986 Jan; 76(1):107-13.
[J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986]Cancer Res. 1987 Apr 1; 47(7):1867-9.
[Cancer Res. 1987]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Mar 29; 91(7):2616-20.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Cancer Res. 2003 Mar 1; 63(5):902-5.
[Cancer Res. 2003]Lab Invest. 1997 Mar; 76(3):365-74.
[Lab Invest. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2003 Dec 12; 278(50):50346-54.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Apr; 6(4):1394-400.
[Clin Cancer Res. 2000]Cancer Lett. 1995 Nov 6; 97(2):233-9.
[Cancer Lett. 1995]Nucleic Acids Res. 1990 Feb 11; 18(3):631-5.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 1990]Lab Invest. 1997 Mar; 76(3):365-74.
[Lab Invest. 1997]Free Radic Res. 2003 Nov; 37(11):1215-24.
[Free Radic Res. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Apr 14; 95(8):4487-92.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]J Histochem Cytochem. 1999 Jun; 47(6):833-6.
[J Histochem Cytochem. 1999]J Biol Chem. 2003 Dec 12; 278(50):50346-54.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Lab Invest. 1997 Mar; 76(3):365-74.
[Lab Invest. 1997]Cancer Res. 1987 Apr 1; 47(7):1867-9.
[Cancer Res. 1987]Cancer Res. 1990 Sep 1; 50(17):5574-80.
[Cancer Res. 1990]Free Radic Res. 2004 May; 38(5):423-9.
[Free Radic Res. 2004]Carcinogenesis. 1999 May; 20(5):837-41.
[Carcinogenesis. 1999]Mutat Res. 2001 Mar; 488(1):65-76.
[Mutat Res. 2001]Am J Pathol. 2002 Feb; 160(2):419-24.
[Am J Pathol. 2002]Lab Invest. 1997 Mar; 76(3):365-74.
[Lab Invest. 1997]J Biol Chem. 2003 Dec 12; 278(50):50346-54.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Nature. 2002 Aug 15; 418(6899):743-50.
[Nature. 2002]Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Apr; 2(4):292-301.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2001]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(7):R44.
[Genome Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Apr 28; 95(9):4882-7.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]Cancer Res. 2001 Sep 1; 61(17):6388-93.
[Cancer Res. 2001]