This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spector, L. G. Articles by Ross, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Spector, L. G. Articles by Ross, J. A.

Ontogeny of Gene Expression: A Changing Environment for Malignancy

Division of Epidemiology/Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics and Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Requests for reprints: Logan G. Spector, Division of Epidemiology/Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street, Southeast, MMC 715, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone: 612-624-3912; Fax: 612-624-7147. E-mail: spector{at}umn.edu

	Introduction

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
More than 13,000 children are estimated to be newly diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States (1). Despite substantial improvements in survival over the last several decades, cancer is still the leading cause of death due to disease in children ages 1 to 14 years (2). The overall incidence rate for childhood cancer has increased significantly since the 1970s, and our recent analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program data for the period 1992 to 2004 points to a continuing increase (3). As we investigate potential causes, it is important to consider what we know thus far.

Gestation is a critical window of risk for most childhood cancers. In utero initiation is supported circumstantially by the young age at diagnosis (4) as well as the histologic and cytogenetic resemblance of embryonal tumor (5) and leukemia (6, 7) cells, respectively, to those found during fetal development. Moreover, childhood cancers have been associated with congenital anomalies in several studies (8-10). Proof-of-principle has been shown by case reports of prenatal diagnosis of several cancer types (11-19) and the detection of leukemic translocations in biospecimens taken at birth (20). The well-known association of vaginal clear-cell carcinoma with prenatal diethylstilbestrol exposure extends the observation of prenatal carcinogenesis to a diagnosis made primarily during young adulthood (21).

Accumulating evidence supports in utero initiation of common adult cancers as well. Birth weight, as a broad indicator of prenatal conditions, is an accessible, widely examined datum and seems to be associated with cancer at many sites (22). Animal experiments have shown that maternal diet can modulate the risk of breast cancer in the offspring (23). Lastly, mathematical modeling of carcinogenesis confirms that gestational mutations can increase cancer risk by expanding the pool of cells susceptible to complete transformation (24, 25).

	Developmental Differences in Gene Expression

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
Gene expression has been observed to vary widely between fetal and postnatal life, with much research seeming to concentrate on xenobiotic metabolism. Wild and Kleinjans (26) previously offered a paradigmatic example of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) phase I enzyme family. Whereas the fetal liver expresses primarily CYP3A7, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 predominate postnatally (26-28) The expression of other phase I and phase II enzymes varies by developmental stage and tissue as well (29, 30).

Consideration of developmental differences in expression is thus critical to the successful identification of genes conferring susceptibility to childhood cancer (or any disease with in utero origins). Genes expressed exclusively or predominantly during gestation by the placenta (an organ of partly fetal origin), zygote (first 2 weeks following conception), embryo (3-8 weeks), or fetus may be preferentially selected for inclusion in candidate gene studies (see Fig. 1 , derived from data in ref. 31). Developmental expression data may also provide a basis for assigning prior probabilities of association to single nucleotide polymorphisms assessed in genome-wide association studies (32), which will be especially important for childhood cancers because their rarity limits achievable sample size and opportunities for replication.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1. Gestational windows of risk for childhood cancers.

	Defining the "Human Gestational Transcriptome"

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

The compilation of existing studies through systematic literature searches and extensive curation will be a worthwhile start. The data to be recorded should include the organ or cell population that provided tissue, the stage of gestation, and the relative level of expression. In an initial set of searches, we used the following terms:

Human + Not Mice + Not Mouse + Ontogeny + Fet* + Gene*

Human + Not Mice + Not Mouse + Ontogeny + Gest* + Gene*

Human + Not Mice + Not Mouse + Ontogeny + In Utero* + Gene*

Human + Not Mice + Not Mouse + Ontogeny + Express* + Gene*

References to expression studies in nonhuman, adult, or diseased tissues were manually screened out. As of February 2008, we have identified more than 400 citations that included 152 unique genes.

Bioinformatic inquiries may be a useful complement. Unigene is a National Center for Biotechnology Information catalogue of user-submitted expressed sequence tags grouped into gene-oriented clusters (33). In addition to breaking down the frequency of expressed sequence tags by body site and disease state, Unigene classifies seven developmental stages, including blastocyst, embryo, and fetus. Restricted expression is denoted when a stage contributes a majority of expressed sequence tags to the pool. For instance, Unigene identifies CYP3A7 (Unigene ID Hs.111944) as having expression restricted to the fetus. Comparing the results of our literature search with Unigene, we noted that 28 genes had a transcript level of at least 50 transcripts per million during the embryonic stage, whereas 44 genes had this transcript level during the fetal stage. These data will be analyzed further to determine gene function and substrates, with consideration of single nucleotide polymorphisms that may affect expression.

A common limitation to the above approaches is the inaccessibility of the developing human under normal circumstances. Many studies examining gene expression in the developing human are reticent about the source of tissue, making the extent to which reported results reflect disease states unclear. However, specimens obtained noninvasively or during frequently done intrauterine procedures hold the promise of providing information on gene expression in a large number of healthy pregnancies. Cell-free mRNA has been isolated from amniotic fluid (34) and gene expression determined from chorionic villus samples (35). Fetal cells may also be isolated from maternal blood(36); the small number of circulating cells may not be an impediment because quantifying gene expression even in a single cell is now possible (37). Cord blood and placentas are, of course, widely available and commonly scrutinized (38, 39). The expression data obtained through these approaches will be limited by a lack of tissue specificity (beyond blood and placenta) and the inability to observe periods before parturition except among pregnancies at risk for poor outcomes.

Determining tissue- and stage-specific gene expression profiles of developing animals presents no ethical constraints. Although it may be informative to examine human orthologues of genes identified from test animals, it must be kept in mind that differences in gene regulation seem to explain many of the differences in development between species (40).

Lastly, some classes of genes may be designated a priori to be expressed by the developing human; for instance, the homeobox genes that regulate morphogenesis (41). Genes that, when mutated, are embryonic lethal or produce congenital abnormalities may also be assumed relevant.

	Conclusions

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
We have identified a clear need for the generation of more knowledge about gene expression during human development. Having proposed several approaches to doing so, we are confident that a sustained, collaborative effort can produce this valuable information. The proposed endeavor can be expected to greatly inform our understanding of childhood and adult cancer.

	Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

	Footnotes

 
¹ J.A. Ross is the Chairman and L.G. Spector is a member of the Steering Committee.

Received 3/20/08; accepted 3/28/08.

	References

Top Introduction Developmental Differences in... Defining the "Human Gestational... Conclusions Disclosure of Potential... References

 

1. Bleyer A, O'Leary M, Barr R, Ries LA, editors. Cancer epidemiology in older adolescents and young adults 15-29 years of age, including SEER incidence and survival: 1975-2000. NIH Pub. No. 06-5767. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2006.
2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71–96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Linabery AM, Ross JA. Trends in childhood cancer incidence in the U.S. (1992-2004). Cancer 2008;112:416–32.[Medline]
4. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2003. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; 2006.
5. Pizzo PA, Poplack DG. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
6. Wasserman R, Galili N, Ito Y, Reichard BA, Shane S, Rovera G. Predominance of fetal type DJH joining in young children with B precursor lymphoblastic leukemia as evidence for an in utero transforming event. J Exp Med 1992;176:1577–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Fasching K, Panzer S, Haas OA, et al. Presence of N regions in the clonotypic DJ rearrangements of the immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes indicates an exquisitely short latency in t(4;11)-positive infant acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2001;98:2272–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Merks JH, Ozgen HM, Koster J, Zwinderman AH, Caron HN, Hennekam RC. Prevalence and patterns of morphological abnormalities in patients with childhood cancer. JAMA 2008;299:61–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Bjorge T, Cnattingius S, Lie RT, Tretli S, Engeland A. Cancer risk in children with birth defects and in their families: a population based cohort study of 5.2 million children from Norway and Sweden. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:500–6.
10. Narod SA, Hawkins MM, Robertson CM, Stiller CA. Congenital anomalies and childhood cancer in Great Britain. Am J Hum Genet 1997;60:474–85.[Medline]
11. Bayoumy M, Wynn T, Jamil A, Kahwash S, Klopfenstein K, Ruymann F. Prenatal presentation supports the in utero development of congenital leukemia: a case report. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2003;25:148–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Rao S, Azmy A, Carachi R. Neonatal tumours: a single-centre experience. Pediatr Surg Int 2002;18:306–9.[Medline]
13. Nuchtern JG. Perinatal neuroblastoma. Semin Pediatr Surg 2006;15:10–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Aviram R, Cohen IJ, Kornreich L, Braslavski D, Meizner I. Prenatal imaging of fetal hepatoblastoma. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;17:157–9.[Medline]
15. Shih JC, Tsao PN, Huang SF, et al. Antenatal diagnosis of congenital hepatoblastoma in utero. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:94–7.[Medline]
16. Vadeyar S, Ramsay M, James D, O'Neill D. Prenatal diagnosis of congenital Wilms' tumor (nephroblastoma) presenting as fetal hydrops. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:80–3.[Medline]
17. Beckwith JB. Prenatal detection of a Wilms' tumor. Pediatr Radiol 1999;29:64.[Medline]
18. Heckel S, Favre R, Gasser B, Christmann D. Prenatal diagnosis of a congenital astrocytoma: a case report and literature review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:63–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Hussain N, Curran A, Pilling D, et al. Congenital subependymal giant cell astrocytoma diagnosed on fetal MRI. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:520.[Free Full Text]
20. Greaves M. In utero origins of childhood leukaemia. Early Hum Dev 2005;81:123–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Troisi R, Hatch EE, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. Cancer risk in women prenatally exposed to diethylstilbestrol. Int J Cancer 2007;121:356–60.[Medline]
22. Ahlgren M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen LW, Sorensen TI, Melbye M. Birth weight and risk of cancer. Cancer 2007;110:412–9.[Medline]
23. Hilakivi-Clarke L, de Assis S. Fetal origins of breast cancer. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2006;17:340–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Meza R, Luebeck EG, Moolgavkar SH. Gestational mutations and carcinogenesis. Math Biosci 2005;197:188–210.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Frank SA, Nowak MA. Cell biology: developmental predisposition to cancer. Nature 2003;422:494.[CrossRef][Medline]
26. Wild CP, Kleinjans J. Children and increased susceptibility to environmental carcinogens: evidence or empathy? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1389–94.[Free Full Text]
27. Ginsberg G, Hattis D, Sonawane B, et al. Evaluation of child/adult pharmacokinetic differences from a database derived from the therapeutic drug literature. Toxicol Sci 2002;66:185–200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Tanaka E. In vivo age-related changes in hepatic drug-oxidizing capacity in humans. J Clin Pharm Ther 1998;23:247–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Hines RN, McCarver DG. The ontogeny of human drug-metabolizing enzymes: phase I oxidative enzymes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002;300:355–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. McCarver DG, Hines RN. The ontogeny of human drug-metabolizing enzymes: phase II conjugation enzymes and regulatory mechanisms. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002;300:361–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Sadler TW. Langman's medical embryology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1995.
32. Thomas DC. Are we ready for genome-wide association studies? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:595–8.[Free Full Text]
33. Wheeler DL, Barrett T, Benson DA, et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:D13–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Larrabee PB, Johnson KL, Lai C, et al. Global gene expression analysis of the living human fetus using cell-free messenger RNA in amniotic fluid. JAMA 2005;293:836–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Farina A, Volinia S, Arcelli D, et al. Evidence of genetic underexpression in chorionic villi samples of euploid fetuses with increased nuchal translucency at 10-11 weeks' gestation. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:128–33.[Medline]
36. Bianchi DW, Hanson J. Sharpening the tools: a summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop on new technologies for detection of fetal cells in maternal blood for early prenatal diagnosis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006;19:199–207.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. Longo D, Hasty J. Dynamics of single-cell gene expression. Mol Syst Biol 2006;2:1–10.
38. Sood R, Zehnder JL, Druzin ML, Brown PO. Gene expression patterns in human placenta. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:5478–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Jaatinen T, Hemmoranta H, Hautaniemi S, et al. Global gene expression profile of human cord blood-derived CD133+ cells. Stem Cells 2006;24:631–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Wray GA. The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations. Nat Rev Genet 2007;8:206–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Holland PW, Booth HA, Bruford EA. Classification and nomenclature of all human homeobox genes. BMC Biol 2007;5:47.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. E. Puumala, S. E. Carozza, E. J. Chow, E. E. Fox, S. Horel, K. J. Johnson, C. McLaughlin, B. A. Mueller, P. Reynolds, J. Von Behren, et al. Childhood Cancer among Twins and Higher Order Multiples Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2009; 18(1): 162 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spector, L. G. Articles by Ross, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Spector, L. G. Articles by Ross, J. A.