Jci_page_head_homepage_01 Jci_page_head_homepage_02
Jacqueline E. Payton, Nicole R. Grieselhuber, Li-Wei Chang, Mark Murakami, Gary K. Geiss, Daniel C. Link, Rakesh Nagarajan, Mark A. Watson, Timothy J. Ley
Published in Volume 119, Issue 6
J Clin Invest. 2009; 119(6):1714–1726 doi:10.1172/JCI38248
Abstract | Full text | PDF | Supplemental material
Options: View larger image (or click on image)
Medium
Figure 7
The NanoString-validated, 33-gene M3-specific signature reliably identifies M3 samples, including those with normal cytogenetics and/or ambiguous morphology.

PCA plots of the validated gene expression data demonstrate a clear separation of M3 t(15;17)-positive samples (red) from other FAB subtypes (gray). (A) Data from the Washington University AML discovery set, including 15 M3 and 62 M0, M1, M2, and M4 AML samples (1). The PCA plot shows clustering of all M3 samples with the PML-RARA rearrangement, but not of 1 sample with an M3 morphological diagnosis, normal cytogenetics, and negative FISH that did not respond to ATRA therapy (blue). (B) NanoString nCounter expression data were sufficiently robust to separate 11/11 of M3 t(15;17)-positive samples from other FAB subtypes. (C) M3 samples from a published dataset (GSE6891) formed a distinct cluster separate from other FAB subtypes (total of 325). M3s with t(15;17) that were missed by routine cytogenetics (yellow) and a t(15;17)-positive sample morphologically classified as M2 (green) were also assigned appropriately to the M3 cluster. (D) A total of 19/20 M3s with t(15;17) from a CALGB sample set clustered separately from 73 other FAB subtypes.