Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Review

Opportunities and Challenges for Selected Emerging Technologies in Cancer Epidemiology: Mitochondrial, Epigenomic, Metabolomic, and Telomerase Profiling

Mukesh Verma, Muin J. Khoury and John P.A. Ioannidis
Mukesh Verma
1Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland; and 2Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, and Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine; and Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muin J. Khoury
1Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland; and 2Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, and Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine; and Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John P.A. Ioannidis
1Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland; and 2Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, and Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine; and Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1263 Published February 2013
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Remarkable progress has been made in the last decade in new methods for biologic measurements using sophisticated technologies that go beyond the established genome, proteome, and gene expression platforms. These methods and technologies create opportunities to enhance cancer epidemiologic studies. In this article, we describe several emerging technologies and evaluate their potential in epidemiologic studies. We review the background, assays, methods, and challenges and offer examples of the use of mitochondrial DNA and copy number assessments, epigenomic profiling (including methylation, histone modification, miRNAs, and chromatin condensation), metabolite profiling (metabolomics), and telomere measurements. We map the volume of literature referring to each one of these measurement tools and the extent to which efforts have been made at knowledge integration (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). We also clarify strengths and weaknesses of the existing platforms and the range of type of samples that can be tested with each of them. These measurement tools can be used in identifying at-risk populations and providing novel markers of survival and treatment response. Rigorous analytic and validation standards, transparent availability of massive data, and integration in large-scale evidence are essential in fulfilling the potential of these technologies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(2); 189–200. ©2012 AACR.

Introduction

Tremendous progress has been made recently in the development and use of sophisticated technologies for enhancing biologic measurements beyond the classic platforms of genomics, proteomics, and gene expression profiling. The advent of these tools offers unique opportunities and challenges for their use in human studies, and cancer epidemiology may benefit from incorporating such measurements. In this review, we assess the landscape of this emerging literature and discuss several of these methods. We specifically address mitochondrial DNA and copy number assessments, epigenomic profiling (including assessments of methylation patterns, histone modification, miRNAs, and chromatin condensation), metabolite profiling (metabolomics), and telomere measurements. For each measurement platform, we offer a background introduction, describe the main assays and methods, and list the main remaining challenges. Finally, we overview the use of these methods in the cancer epidemiology literature, the types of samples they can be used on, and their overall strengths and weaknesses.

Overview of the literature landscape

Table 1 shows the advent of these measurement platforms in the overall literature and also focused on cancer, human studies, and specific types of designs. As shown, the volume of publications is still relatively limited compared with the massive literature on genomics/genetics and gene expression profiling, but many of these measurements already have as large literatures as proteomics with several tens of thousands of papers overall, and several thousands of articles focused on cancer in particular. Methylation and telomere-related articles have an especially strong cancer focus, with approximately 40% of the literature focusing on cancer (as compared with 13% of the overall PubMed). Moreover, 78% to 85% of the cancer literature on all these platforms is on humans. Their use in traditional epidemiologic studies is still relatively limited, accounting for a small fraction of this rapidly expanding literature, with only methylation-related epidemiologic studies exceeding 1,000. Many systematic reviews have also started being published, but meta-analyses remain uncommon, with only a few dozen being available. Most of these meta-analyses focus on single markers, and they almost ubiquitously depend on published summary data. This raises concerns about the breadth of coverage of the evidence and the reliability of inferences.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Landscape of the literature on emerging types of measurements

Mitochondrial DNA

Background

Mitochondria play an important role in cellular energy metabolism, free-radical generation, and apoptosis. During neoplastic transformation, the mitochondrial genome may be damaged with accumulation of somatic mutations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). These mutations could represent a means for tracking tumor progression. Mitochondria contain their own genome (16.5 kb), along with transcription, translation, and protein assembly machinery and maintain genomic independence from the nucleus (1, 2). Both germline and somatic alterations in mtDNA have been observed in cancer and other diseases (3–6). For example, the polymorphism G10398A within the NADH dehydrogenase (ND3) subunit of complex I has been probed for association with breast cancer, neurodegerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease, Friedreich's ataxia, longevity, and amyotropic lateral sclerosis (7). Somatic mitochondrial mutations have been detected in different tumor types, including in breast, colon, esophageal, endometrial, head and neck, liver, kidney, lung, oral, ovarian, prostate, and thyroid cancers, leukemia, and melanoma (3–10). Most somatic mutations are homoplasmic in nature (i.e., all mitochondria carry the same mutations), with mutant mtDNA becoming dominant in tumor cells. Furthermore, the number of copies of mtDNA per cell can vary in normal and disease states (8). The mitochondrial genome lacks introns and is organized in 21 major haplogroups named after the letters of the alphabet (4, 9–12). Some haplogroups have been associated with specific cancers in specific populations (3, 4). Tools for characterizing and measuring mtDNA characteristics (including MitoChip) are available and are sufficiently high-throughput for assessing large numbers of epidemiologic samples (13, 14). Numerous epidemiologic studies have been conducted using mitochondria information to examine cancer risk factors, natural history, screening markers, response to therapy, and/or long-term outcomes.

Assays and methods

Tissues, blood cells, exfoliated cells, and biofluids are a good source of mtDNA. To measure alterations in mtDNA [deletions, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), mutations, copy number], total DNA is usually isolated, followed by PCR and nucleotide sequencing. The entire mitochondrial genome is amplified first in 2 long-range PCR reactions, followed by sequencing. Using MitoChip, mtDNA fragments are amplified and prepared for array hybridization according to the Affymetrix protocol for the GeneChip Customseq array (15). Investigators also have used restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis for mtDNA variations in tissue samples (16).

For haplogroup analysis, a hierarchical system combines multiplex PCR amplification, multiple single-base primer extensions, and capillary-based electrophoretic separation (17). The output of the GeneChip DNA analysis generates a report of the individual and total numbers of SNPs. Sequence variations are verified against reference mtDNA. Typically samples with call rates less than 95% are discarded. mtDNA molecules and the virtual number of mitochondria per cell are calculated with reference to a nuclear housekeeping gene (18). Laser capture microdissection can be used to separate different cell types, for example, epithelial cells from stroma for ovarian cancer (19, 20). A transparent thermoplastic film is attached to the tissue on the histopathology slide and cells are localized by microscopy. Different cell types are identified and targeted through the microscope with a 15 to 30 μm carbon dioxide laser beam pulse. The strong focal adhesion allows selective procurement of targeted cells suitable for mtDNA isolation and characterization.

Challenges

Determining an accurate mtDNA copy number is difficult, because in some situations, mtDNA becomes integrated into the nuclear genome at nonspecific sites (8, 21–23). Another challenge is the simultaneous characterization of nuclear and mtDNA in cases and controls. Although technically possible, such studies have not yet been conducted within large epidemiologic studies. Selection of sample source is another problem. When mutations in blood DNA were compared with mutations in breast cancer tissue from the same patient, the mutations did not match. This suggests that blood might not be the most appropriate biospecimen (24).

Epigenomics

Background

Epigenetics may affect gene expression without changing the nucleotide sequence. The 4 major components of epigenetic machinery include DNA methylation, histone modification, miRNA expression and processing, and chromatin condensation (25, 26). Methylation and histone markers have been used in studies trying to determine the etiology of breast, colon, esophageal, gastric, liver, lung, pancreas, ovary, prostate, renal, and other cancers (25–31).

miRNA profiling has been used in cases and controls in some epidemiologic studies (e.g., disease survival in lung cancer and therapy outcome in bladder cancer; refs. 32–35). High-throughput miRNA quantification technologies such as the miRNA microarray (36–41), bead-based flow cytometry (42), and real-time (RT)-PCR–based TaqMan miRNA assay (43, 44) can be used for miRNA profiling.

Epigenetic biomarkers may offer advantages over other types of biomarkers because they reflect a person's genetic background plus environmental exposures. Most epigenetic events occur early in cancer development and thus can be used for early detection. Epigenetic alterations also respond to environmental changes, and technologies are available to measure these changes (45, 46). Altered epigenomic profiling can be seen in response to toxins and environmental pollutants (47–50). Different environmental exposures may affect different components of the epigenetic machinery. For example, exposure to metal carcinogens such as nickel, chromate, arsenite, and cadmium has increased recently because of occupational exposures, the massive growth of manufacturing activities, increased consumption of nonferrous materials, and disposal of waste products (51). These metals are potentially weak carcinogens: although they do not damage DNA directly (as does radiation), they may exert carcinogenic effects by epigenetic mechanisms, especially after chronic exposure (50).

Epigenetic alterations can be reversed by chemicals and can activate gene expression. Thus multiple potential uses have been proposed for epigenetic biomarkers in cancer intervention and treatment (25, 26, 29, 30, 42, 52–64). Observational, experimental, and clinical studies in different diseases, especially cancer, have shown that nutrients may influence epigenetic regulation, for example, folic acid can supply methyl groups (57, 59, 65–68). Ingredients in some natural foods show properties similar to the inhibitors of histone acetylation.

Epidemiologic studies have been conducted in bladder (30), breast (69, 70), cervical (71), colon (72), gastric (26, 73, 74), head and neck (55, 75), liver (25, 52, 76), and renal (77–79) cancers using methylation profiling and/or polymorphisms in genes involved in initiating or maintaining methylation (53, 54, 78, 80, 81). These studies have suggested associations between methylation markers and cancer development that need further validation. In most studies, blood rather than tissue was used for analysis.

Assays and methods

Both tissues and biofluids have been used for epigenetic analysis. MethyLight technology, pyrosequencing, and chromatin immunoprecipitation-on-chip (ChIP-on-chip) can measure epigenetic alterations in cancer (82, 83). For methylation profiling, quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (QMSP) assays are conducted, followed by pyrosequencing (84). All assays use sodium bisulfite followed by alkali treatment (85). Bisulfite reacts with unmethylated cytosines and converts them to uracil. Methylated cytosines and other bases are not affected by bisulfite treatment. In the PCR reaction, all converted cytosines behave like uracils. MethyLight is the most common method used to determine the methylation profile in real-time (82, 86–88). MethyLight is a high-throughput, quantitative methylation assay that uses fluorescence-based, real-time PCR technology and requires no manipulation after the PCR reaction. It can detect a methylation allele among 1,000 unmethylated alleles.

The most common method for miRNA profiling in cancer samples is the GeneChip microarray technology developed by Affymetrix. For histone profiling, monoclonal antibodies against specific histone modifications are used for chromatin immunoprecipitation (89, 90). Another popular epigenetics technique is the ChIP assay followed by next-generation sequencing (ChIP-seq) analysis, which can detect genome-wide histone modifications and methylation (91).

Challenges

Unlike the genome, which is the same for all types of cells, the epigenome is dynamic and changes with cell type and age. Therefore, the epigenome should be evaluated several times to follow cancer-associated alterations. The biggest challenge is the choice of sample (tissue vs. blood). Blood, which is collected in most epidemiologic studies, may not be an adequate sample, because epigenetic profiles and alterations of blood cells do not match those of tissue. Use of blood cells is also problematic because blood is a mixture of cells with different half-lives, ranging from 6 hours for neutrophils to months and years for macrophages and memory cells. Epigenetic changes are dynamic and continuously evolve during cancer development. Epigenetic changes are tissue-specific and cell-type–specific. The research question itself determines the most appropriate tissue to be selected for epigenetic analyses.

Histone profiling uses ChIP assays that use antibodies against posttranslational modifications of histones (92–94). Obtaining high-quality monoclonal antibodies for use against cancer-associated histone modifications is challenging because monoclonal antibodies show batch effects (92). A central resource of large amounts of high-affinity, high-quality monoclonal antibodies is needed.

Proteins that bind to the methylated regions have been characterized, along with methylation patterns. These proteins are identified by methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (methyl DIP), which involves the hybridization of immunoprecipitated methylated DNA to microarrays or deep sequencing of the DNA in the immunoprecipitated DNA complex (95). Improvements are required, however, to adapt this process for large-scale use in addressing such problems as low resolution when using microarrays, difficulty in obtaining sufficient coverage when deep sequencing is used, and high false discovery rates.

Taking precautions while collecting and storing samples for miRNA analysis can be challenging in epidemiologic studies. Ideally tissue samples are snap-frozen and stored at −70°C (96, 97). Fixed tissues can be problematic for miRNA analyses if proper protocols are not applied (98, 99). In miRNA analysis, different control RNAs are run simultaneously. During miRNA profiling, primers to the internal controls should be included to avoid false-positive results (100).

Metabolomics

Background

The metabolome measures directly the output of biologic pathways and thus may be more representative of the functional state of cells than other “omics” measures. Metabolomics is the study of low-molecular-weight molecules or metabolites produced within cells and biologic systems. Metabolomic profiling may help discover new disease risk, screening, diagnostic, and prognostic biomarkers. This technology also provides novel insights into disease mechanisms (101–103). The metabolome reflects cellular activity at the functional level and, hence, can be used to discern mechanistic information during normal and disease states (104–107). In clinical samples (serum, urine), metabolites are more stable than proteins or RNA. The number of epidemiologic studies that use metabolomic profiling is still small than other technologies (Table 1), but applications are developing quickly (103, 104, 108) and validation studies are expected in the near future.

Assays and methods

Metabolomic profiling is conducted in blood or urine. Metabolomics involves 2 major technologies—mass spectrometry (MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR)—that can measure hundreds to thousands of unique chemical entities (101). The advantages of NMR include comprehensive generation of metabolite profiles by a single nondestructive method, full automation with high-throughput capacity, a well-established mathematical and statistical tool box, and very high analytic reproducibility (104). Disadvantages of NMR are its relative insensitivity in detecting metabolites with concentrations in the micromole range and above and dependence on the quality of sample collection and handling, and on the available metadata. MS-based metabolomics typically consist of 3 basic components: (i) the “front end” fractionation of complex mixtures, (ii) mass spectral data acquisition, and (iii) metabolite identification and characterization by database searching. Advantages of MS include that the technique is highly sensitive and can detect metabolites with picomole concentrations, it requires small biospecimen volumes, separation by chromatography enables metabolites to be individually identified and quantified, and high-throughput automation is feasible (109, 110). Disadvantages of MS include expensive consumables, relatively lower analytic reproducibility, poor representation of highly polar metabolites when using standard chromatography protocols, and more complex software and algorithms required for routine data analysis (111, 112).

Challenges

Special attention must be paid to optimize protocols for maximizing the reproducibility, sensitivity, and quantitative reliability of metabolomics analysis. Furthermore, multivariate statistical modeling approaches are needed for better visualization and analysis of data. False-positive results can make interpretation difficult unless multiplicity is properly accounted for. Advancements in automatic sample preparation and handling, robotic sample delivery systems, automatic data processing, and multivariate statistical approaches can help streamline and standardize the process, but there are a number of different platforms (113–120), and familiarity is required for their proper use.

Despite early promise, the full potential of metabolomics cannot be fully realized at the present time. Challenges include the limited availability of high-quality metabolite reference standards and of facilities that provide high-quality metabolomics services. To characterize unknown metabolites, standard, well-characterized metabolites are spiked with the clinical samples. The idea is to develop both isotopically labeled (i.e., 15N, 13C, or 2H) and unlabeled metabolite standards for use with MS and/or NMR, respectively. Compounds need to be synthesized in GLP laboratories with ISO 9000 certification and purified either by chromatographic methods or crystallization to more than 95% purity. Classes of metabolites that require reference standards for metabolite identification include but are not limited to glycolytic and other energy intermediates, amino acid metabolism, lipids (phospholipids, glycerolipids, sphingolipids, glycolipids, oxylipins), acylcarnitines and acylglycines, secondary drug metabolites, secondary food metabolites, and fatty acids.

The lack of widely used robust automation tools and techniques in MS-based platforms remains a major limiting factor in high-throughput discovery and in transitioning such platforms to clinical chemistry laboratories (121)

Telomerase

Background

Telomeres, the ends of chromosomes, are specialized nucleoprotein structures that consist of guanine (G)-rich repetitive DNA sequences complexed with proteins (122–124). Telomeres are required for maintenance, proper replication, and segregation of chromosomes. Without telomerase caps, human chromosomes undergo end-to-end fusion, forming dicentric and multicentric chromosomes that break during mitosis, leading to the activation of DNA damage checkpoints and initiation of the p53 pathway with growth arrest and cell death (125). Somatic cell telomeres shorten by 50 to 200 bp with each cell division, leading to replicative senescence and irreversible growth arrest. Telomere length is maintained by the protein telomerase, which adds TTAGGG repeats at the ends of chromosomes (126). Telomerase encompasses a catalytic subunit with telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) activity, a telomerase RNA component (TERC) that acts as a template for DNA synthesis, and the protein dyskerin (Dkc1), which binds and stabilizes TERC. Telomerase protects the chromosome ends from unscheduled DNA repair and degradation. Both the length of the telomere repeats and the integrity of telomere-binding proteins are important for telomere protection. Telomere shortening below a certain threshold length and/or alterations in the functionality of telomere-binding proteins can result in loss of telomere protection, leading eventually to apoptosis (127). Telomere dysfunction has been hypothesized to promote the acquisition of genetic lesions essential to cancer progression. Several epidemiologic studies have examined the average relative telomere length (RTL) as a potential biomarker for predisposition to bladder, colon, head and neck, lung, renal, and skin cancers (126, 128, 129). Biospecimen collection response rates are greater for buccal cells than for blood samples. PCR-based assays have been developed to measure telomerase activity in epidemiologic samples (130). In addition, the area around the TERT gene has been hypothesized to be a cancer polymorphism “hot spot” in different cancers (131–134).

Assays and methods

DNA from any type of cells is suitable for telomerase assays and can be isolated as described in reference (130). The PCR-based assay includes controls for inter- and intraplate variability of threshold cycle values. RTL is calculated as the ratio of telomere repeat copy number to single-gene copy number in samples, compared with the reference DNA sample. Telomere length also can be determined by quantitative FISH (TQ-FISH; refs. 135, 136) where paraffin-embedded tissues are hybridized with fluorescence-tagged telomere probes.

Challenges

When studying the association between disease risk and telomere length, it is critical to determine the telomere length accurately. Discrepancies have been reported between telomere length–based studies and telomerase activity–based studies. In contrast to the belief that reduced telomere length reflects a risk of cancer, contradictory results were obtained by different investigators (134, 137–139). Nonsignificant RTL shortening was observed in a breast cancer nested case–control study (130, 138). Study limitations that affect all epidemiologic observational studies, such as subject selection procedures, confounding, measurement errors, analysis, or selective reporting, might explain discrepancies.

Comments and Conclusions

Table 2 summarizes some strengths and weaknesses for each of the methods discussed above. Not all samples are suitable for these methods and technologies. A list of biospecimens and the appropriate technology for analyzing samples is provided in Table 3. Selected examples where technologies described in this article are applied for different epidemiologic studies are given in Table 4.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Comparison of selected emerging methods and technologies for use in cancer epidemiology

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Sample types appropriate for selected methods and technologies that can be used in cancer risk assessment, detection, prognosis, and survival

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Selected examples where mitochondrial, metabolomic, epigenomic, and telomerase profiling was used in screening, risk assessment, and prognosis (e.g., survival, disease aggression, or recurrence)

We have described the advent of several new biologic measurement methods that may be of use in cancer epidemiology and beyond. We make some final comments here about the evolution of this evidence.

First, while we discussed each platform in isolation, it is possible that information obtained from multiple markers and multiple platforms may be most informative in some circumstances. Detecting multiple markers in cancer epidemiology has been suggested from time to time (140–143). For example, El-Tayeh and colleagues (141) suggested evaluating α-fetoprotein (AFP), α-l-fucosidase (AFU), TGF-α and -β, and interleukin-8 (IL-8) simultaneously to enhance the sensitivity and specificity of hepatocellular carcinoma. Large-scale assessment at multiple times of the genome, proteome, transcriptome, and metabolome has been recently described (144), and as platforms become less expensive, such combined assessments may become feasible in larger samples of patients. Selecting between complexity and parsimony remains a prominent challenge.

Second, for most of the platforms that we described, most of the ongoing research is discovery-oriented and replication efforts are still at their infancy. Not surprisingly, no meta-analysis to date is available on any mtDNA topic and only few have been conducted on epigenetic or telomere markers. This poses challenges in interpreting the reliability of the published results. Validation efforts should include not only cross-validation or bootstrapping on the same samples and datasets but also external validation in independent diverse datasets, preferably also by different teams of investigators (145–148). Reporting of these complex studies is also not standardized and would benefit from adoption of relevant reporting guidelines (149–151).

Third, handling complex omics and related data collected in cancer epidemiology presents another challenge. The vast amount of data and biases that are introduced create a need for fast and effective computer analysis programs and for transparent large-scale data repositories. Most studies using the discussed platforms are done by single teams, but there is an increasing interest in larger coalitions of teams and consortia. Public availability of raw data, protocols, and analysis codes for these complex investigations could go a long way toward improving the transparency, reliability, and reproducibility of this research (145, 152).

In summary, progress continues to be made in emerging technologies in the cancer epigenetics and epidemiology fields, and some of the technologies are ready to be used in larger scale, whereas others need improvements in analytic validity, high-throughput performance, and sensitivity of detection. In the coming years, we expect that these emerging technologies may be used for different epidemiologic studies to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of cancer risk factors, understand natural history and evaluate screening markers, and understand responses to therapy and/or evaluate longer term outcomes. Epidemiologic studies may also inform future randomized controlled trials to explore clinical use for different applications in practice.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M. Verma, M. Khoury, J.P.A. Ioannidis

Development of methodology: M. Verma, M. Khoury, J.P.A. Ioannidis

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): M. Verma, M. Khoury, J.P.A. Ioannidis

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M. Verma, M. Khoury, J.P.A. Ioannidis

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M. Verma, M. Khoury, J.P.A. Ioannidis

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): M. Verma, M. Khoury

Study supervision: M. Verma, M. Khoury

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Andrew Freedman, Elizabeth Gillanders, Somdat Mahabir, Britt Reid, Sheri Schully, and Daniela Seminara for reading the manuscript and providing useful comments.

  • Received November 13, 2012.
  • Accepted November 21, 2012.
  • ©2012 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Czarnecka AM,
    2. Golik P,
    3. Bartnik E
    . Mitochondrial DNA mutations in human neoplasia. J Appl Genet 2006;47:67–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Czarnecka AM,
    2. Czarnecki JS,
    3. Kukwa W,
    4. Cappello F,
    5. Scinska A,
    6. Kukwa A
    . Molecular oncology focus - is carcinogenesis a ‘mitochondriopathy'? J Biomed Sci 2010;17:31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Canter JA,
    2. Kallianpur AR,
    3. Parl FF,
    4. Millikan RC
    . Mitochondrial DNA G10398A polymorphism and invasive breast cancer in African-American women. Cancer Res 2005;65:8028–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Darvishi K,
    2. Sharma S,
    3. Bhat AK,
    4. Rai E,
    5. Bamezai RN
    . Mitochondrial DNA G10398A polymorphism imparts maternal Haplogroup N a risk for breast and esophageal cancer. Cancer Lett 2007;249:249–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mims MP,
    2. Hayes TG,
    3. Zheng S,
    4. Leal SM,
    5. Frolov A,
    6. Ittmann MM,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA G10398A polymorphism and invasive breast cancer in African-American women. Cancer Res 2006;66:1880.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Yu M
    . Somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in human cancers. Adv Clin Chem 2012;57:99–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ross OA,
    2. McCormack R,
    3. Curran MD,
    4. Duguid RA,
    5. Barnett YA,
    6. Rea IM,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism: its role in longevity of the Irish population. Exp Gerontol 2001;36:1161–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Yu M
    . Generation, function and diagnostic value of mitochondrial DNA copy number alterations in human cancers. Life Sci 2011;89:65–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Fang H,
    2. Shen L,
    3. Chen T,
    4. He J,
    5. Ding Z,
    6. Wei J,
    7. et al.
    Cancer type-specific modulation of mitochondrial haplogroups in breast, colorectal and thyroid cancer. BMC Cancer 2010;10:421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Ebner S,
    2. Lang R,
    3. Mueller EE,
    4. Eder W,
    5. Oeller M,
    6. Moser A,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial haplogroups, control region polymorphisms and malignant melanoma: a study in middle European Caucasians. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e27192.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Verma M,
    2. Kagan J,
    3. Sidransky D,
    4. Srivastava S
    . Proteomic analysis of cancer-cell mitochondria. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:789–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Verma M,
    2. Naviaux RK,
    3. Tanaka M,
    4. Kumar D,
    5. Franceschi C,
    6. Singh KK
    . Meeting report: mitochondrial DNA and cancer epidemiology. Cancer Res 2007;67:437–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Maitra A,
    2. Cohen Y,
    3. Gillespie SE,
    4. Mambo E,
    5. Fukushima N,
    6. Hoque MO,
    7. et al.
    The Human MitoChip: a high-throughput sequencing microarray for mitochondrial mutation detection. Genome Res 2004;14:812–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Kassauei K,
    2. Habbe N,
    3. Mullendore ME,
    4. Karikari CA,
    5. Maitra A,
    6. Feldmann G
    . Mitochondrial DNA mutations in pancreatic cancer. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 2006;37:57–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lam ET,
    2. Bracci PM,
    3. Holly EA,
    4. Chu C,
    5. Poon A,
    6. Wan E,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation and risk of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 2012;72:686–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ye C,
    2. Shu XO,
    3. Pierce L,
    4. Wen W,
    5. Courtney R,
    6. Gao YT,
    7. et al.
    Mutations in the mitochondrial DNA D-loop region and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;119:431–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Wiesbauer M,
    2. Meierhofer D,
    3. Mayr JA,
    4. Sperl W,
    5. Paulweber B,
    6. Kofler B
    . Multiplex primer extension analysis for rapid detection of major European mitochondrial haplogroups. Electrophoresis 2006;27:3864–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Robin ED,
    2. Wong R
    . Mitochondrial DNA molecules and virtual number of mitochondria per cell in mammalian cells. J Cell Physiol 1988;136:507–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Fukino K,
    2. Shen L,
    3. Matsumoto S,
    4. Morrison CD,
    5. Mutter GL,
    6. Eng C
    . Combined total genome loss of heterozygosity scan of breast cancer stroma and epithelium reveals multiplicity of stromal targets. Cancer Res 2004;64:7231–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kurose K,
    2. Hoshaw-Woodard S,
    3. Adeyinka A,
    4. Lemeshow S,
    5. Watson PH,
    6. Eng C
    . Genetic model of multi-step breast carcinogenesis involving the epithelium and stroma: clues to tumour-microenvironment interactions. Hum Mol Genet 2001;10:1907–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lee HC,
    2. Li SH,
    3. Lin JC,
    4. Wu CC,
    5. Yeh DC,
    6. Wei YH
    . Somatic mutations in the D-loop and decrease in the copy number of mitochondrial DNA in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Mutat Res 2004;547:71–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Yin PH,
    2. Lee HC,
    3. Chau GY,
    4. Wu YT,
    5. Li SH,
    6. Lui WY,
    7. et al.
    Alteration of the copy number and deletion of mitochondrial DNA in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2390–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Yamada S,
    2. Nomoto S,
    3. Fujii T,
    4. Kaneko T,
    5. Takeda S,
    6. Inoue S,
    7. et al.
    Correlation between copy number of mitochondrial DNA and clinico-pathologic parameters of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:303–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Cai FF,
    2. Kohler C,
    3. Zhang B,
    4. Chen WJ,
    5. Barekati Z,
    6. Garritsen HS,
    7. et al.
    Mutations of mitochondrial DNA as potential biomarkers in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2011;31:4267–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Tamagawa H,
    2. Oshima T,
    3. Shiozawa M,
    4. Morinaga S,
    5. Nakamura Y,
    6. Yoshihara M,
    7. et al.
    The global histone modification pattern correlates with overall survival in metachronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep 2012;27:637–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Park YS,
    2. Jin MY,
    3. Kim YJ,
    4. Yook JH,
    5. Kim BS,
    6. Jang SJ
    . The global histone modification pattern correlates with cancer recurrence and overall survival in gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:1968–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Vineis P,
    2. Chuang SC,
    3. Vaissiere T,
    4. Cuenin C,
    5. Ricceri F,
    6. Johansson M,
    7. et al.
    DNA methylation changes associated with cancer risk factors and blood levels of vitamin metabolites in a prospective study. Epigenetics 2011;6:195–201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Brennan K,
    2. Flanagan JM
    . Epigenetic epidemiology for cancer risk: harnessing germline epigenetic variation. Methods Mol Biol 2012;863:439–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hsiung DT,
    2. Marsit CJ,
    3. Houseman EA,
    4. Eddy K,
    5. Furniss CS,
    6. McClean MD,
    7. et al.
    Global DNA methylation level in whole blood as a biomarker in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:108–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Yan C,
    2. Kim YW,
    3. Ha YS,
    4. Kim IY,
    5. Kim YJ,
    6. Yun SJ,
    7. et al.
    RUNX3 methylation as a predictor for disease progression in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Surg Oncol 2012;105:425–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ling ZQ,
    2. Zhao Q,
    3. Zhou SL,
    4. Mao WM
    . MSH2 promoter hypermethylation in circulating tumor DNA is a valuable predictor of disease-free survival for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:326–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Hu Z,
    2. Chen X,
    3. Zhao Y,
    4. Tian T,
    5. Jin G,
    6. Shu Y,
    7. et al.
    Serum microRNA signatures identified in a genome-wide serum microRNA expression profiling predict survival of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1721–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Landi MT,
    2. Zhao Y,
    3. Rotunno M,
    4. Koshiol J,
    5. Liu H,
    6. Bergen AW,
    7. et al.
    MicroRNA expression differentiates histology and predicts survival of lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:430–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Teo MT,
    2. Landi D,
    3. Taylor CF,
    4. Elliott F,
    5. Vaslin L,
    6. Cox DG,
    7. et al.
    The role of microRNA-binding site polymorphisms in DNA repair genes as risk factors for bladder cancer and breast cancer and their impact on radiotherapy outcomes. Carcinogenesis 2012;33:581–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Nair VS,
    2. Maeda LS,
    3. Ioannidis JP
    . Clinical outcome prediction by microRNAs in human cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:528–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Castoldi M,
    2. Schmidt S,
    3. Benes V,
    4. Hentze MW,
    5. Muckenthaler MU
    . miChip: an array-based method for microRNA expression profiling using locked nucleic acid capture probes. Nat Protoc 2008;3:321–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Castoldi M,
    2. Benes V,
    3. Hentze MW,
    4. Muckenthaler MU
    . miChip: a microarray platform for expression profiling of microRNAs based on locked nucleic acid (LNA) oligonucleotide capture probes. Methods 2007;43:146–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Castoldi M,
    2. Schmidt S,
    3. Benes V,
    4. Noerholm M,
    5. Kulozik AE,
    6. Hentze MW,
    7. et al.
    A sensitive array for microRNA expression profiling (miChip) based on locked nucleic acids (LNA). RNA 2006;12:913–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Goff LA,
    2. Yang M,
    3. Bowers J,
    4. Getts RC,
    5. Padgett RW,
    6. Hart RP
    . Rational probe optimization and enhanced detection strategy for microRNAs using microarrays. RNA Biol 2005;2:93–100.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Liu CG,
    2. Calin GA,
    3. Meloon B,
    4. Gamliel N,
    5. Sevignani C,
    6. Ferracin M,
    7. et al.
    An oligonucleotide microchip for genome-wide microRNA profiling in human and mouse tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:9740–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Thomson JM,
    2. Parker J,
    3. Perou CM,
    4. Hammond SM
    . A custom microarray platform for analysis of microRNA gene expression. Nat Methods 2004;1:47–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Lu J,
    2. Getz G,
    3. Miska EA,
    4. Alvarez-Saavedra E,
    5. Lamb J,
    6. Peck D,
    7. et al.
    MicroRNA expression profiles classify human cancers. Nature 2005;435:834–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Chen C,
    2. Ridzon DA,
    3. Broomer AJ,
    4. Zhou Z,
    5. Lee DH,
    6. Nguyen JT,
    7. et al.
    Real-time quantification of microRNAs by stem-loop RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:e179.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Jiang J,
    2. Lee EJ,
    3. Gusev Y,
    4. Schmittgen TD
    . Real-time expression profiling of microRNA precursors in human cancer cell lines. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:5394–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Arita A,
    2. Costa M
    . Epigenetics in metal carcinogenesis: nickel, arsenic, chromium and cadmium. Metallomics 2009;1:222–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Sutherland JE,
    2. Costa M
    . Epigenetics and the environment. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;983:151–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Bollati V,
    2. Baccarelli A,
    3. Sartori S,
    4. Tarantini L,
    5. Motta V,
    6. Rota F,
    7. et al.
    Epigenetic effects of shiftwork on blood DNA methylation. Chronobiol Int 2010;27:1093–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Zhu ZZ,
    2. Hou L,
    3. Bollati V,
    4. Tarantini L,
    5. Marinelli B,
    6. Cantone L,
    7. et al.
    Predictors of global methylation levels in blood DNA of healthy subjects: a combined analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:126–39.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Costa BM,
    2. Caeiro C,
    3. Guimaraes I,
    4. Martinho O,
    5. Jaraquemada T,
    6. Augusto I,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic value of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide-based chemoradiation: a Portuguese multicentre study. Oncol Rep 2010;23:1655–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Arita A,
    2. Niu J,
    3. Qu Q,
    4. Zhao N,
    5. Ruan Y,
    6. Nadas A,
    7. et al.
    Global levels of histone modifications in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of subjects with exposure to nickel. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120:198–203.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Arita A,
    2. Shamy MY,
    3. Chervona Y,
    4. Clancy HA,
    5. Sun H,
    6. Hall MN,
    7. et al.
    The effect of exposure to carcinogenic metals on histone tail modifications and gene expression in human subjects. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2012;26:174–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rivenbark AG,
    2. Coleman WB
    . The use of epigenetic biomarkers for preclinical detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: potential for noninvasive screening of high-risk populations. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:2309–12.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Kiyohara C,
    2. Horiuchi T,
    3. Takayama K,
    4. Nakanishi Y
    . Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and interaction with smoking and alcohol consumption in lung cancer risk: a case-control study in a Japanese population. BMC Cancer 2011;11:459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Kawakita D,
    2. Matsuo K,
    3. Sato F,
    4. Oze I,
    5. Hosono S,
    6. Ito H,
    7. et al.
    Association between dietary folate intake and clinical outcome in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2012;23:186–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Poage GM,
    2. Butler RA,
    3. Houseman EA,
    4. McClean MD,
    5. Nelson HH,
    6. Christensen BC,
    7. et al.
    Identification of an epigenetic profile classifier that is associated with survival in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 2012;72:2728–2737.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Verma M
    . Epigenetic biomarkers in cancer epidemiology. Methods Mol Biol 2012;863:467–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Khare S,
    2. Verma M
    . Epigenetics of colon cancer. Methods Mol Biol 2012;863:177–85.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Mishra A,
    2. Verma M
    . Epigenetics of solid cancer stem cells. Methods Mol Biol 2012;863:15–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Verma M
    . Cancer control and prevention by nutrition and epigenetic approaches. Antioxid Redox Signal 2012;17:355–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Kumar D,
    2. Verma M
    . Methods in cancer epigenetics and epidemiology. Methods Mol Biol 2009;471:273–88.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Verma M,
    2. Maruvada P,
    3. Srivastava S
    . Epigenetics and cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2004;41:585–607.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Verma M,
    2. Dunn BK,
    3. Ross S,
    4. Jain P,
    5. Wang W,
    6. Hayes R,
    7. et al.
    Early detection and risk assessment: proceedings and recommendations from the Workshop on Epigenetics in Cancer Prevention. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;983:298–319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Verma M
    . Viral genes and methylation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;983:170–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Verma M,
    2. Srivastava S
    . Epigenetics in cancer: implications for early detection and prevention. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:755–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Holmes RS,
    2. Zheng Y,
    3. Baron JA,
    4. Li L,
    5. McKeown-Eyssen G,
    6. Newcomb PA,
    7. et al.
    Use of folic acid-containing supplements after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the Colon Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:2023–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Duthie SJ
    . Epigenetic modifications and human pathologies: cancer and CVD. Proc Nutr Soc 2011;70:47–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    1. Park Y,
    2. Spiegelman D,
    3. Hunter DJ,
    4. Albanes D,
    5. Bergkvist L,
    6. Buring JE,
    7. et al.
    Intakes of vitamins A, C, and E and use of multiple vitamin supplements and risk of colon cancer: a pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:1745–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Nystrom M,
    2. Mutanen M
    . Diet and epigenetics in colon cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:257–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Ben Gacem R,
    2. Hachana M,
    3. Ziadi S,
    4. Amara K,
    5. Ksia F,
    6. Mokni M,
    7. et al.
    Contribution of epigenetic alteration of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast carcinomas in Tunisian patients. Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:190–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Fuhrman BJ,
    2. Schairer C,
    3. Gail MH,
    4. Boyd-Morin J,
    5. Xu X,
    6. Sue LY,
    7. et al.
    Estrogen metabolism and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:326–39.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.↵
    1. Mirabello L,
    2. Sun C,
    3. Ghosh A,
    4. Rodriguez AC,
    5. Schiffman M,
    6. Wentzensen N,
    7. et al.
    Methylation of human papillomavirus type 16 genome and risk of cervical precancer in a Costa Rican population. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:556–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Han SS,
    2. Sue LY,
    3. Berndt SI,
    4. Selhub J,
    5. Burdette LA,
    6. Rosenberg PS,
    7. et al.
    Associations between genes in the one-carbon metabolism pathway and advanced colorectal adenoma risk in individuals with low folate intake. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:417–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Balassiano K,
    2. Lima S,
    3. Jenab M,
    4. Overvad K,
    5. Tjonneland A,
    6. Boutron-Ruault MC,
    7. et al.
    Aberrant DNA methylation of cancer-associated genes in gastric cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-EURGAST). Cancer Lett 2011;311:85–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Gao Y,
    2. Baccarelli A,
    3. Shu XO,
    4. Ji BT,
    5. Yu K,
    6. Tarantini L,
    7. et al.
    Blood leukocyte Alu and LINE-1 methylation and gastric cancer risk in the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Br J Cancer 2012;106:585–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Langevin SM,
    2. Koestler DC,
    3. Christensen BC,
    4. Butler RA,
    5. Wiencke JK,
    6. Nelson HH,
    7. et al.
    Peripheral blood DNA methylation profiles are indicative of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an epigenome-wide association study. Epigenetics 2012;7:291–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Cheng Y,
    2. Zhang C,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Wang C,
    5. Xu Y,
    6. Han Z,
    7. et al.
    Correlation of CpG island methylator phenotype with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Exp Mol Pathol 2010;88:112–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Liao LM,
    2. Brennan P,
    3. van Bemmel DM,
    4. Zaridze D,
    5. Matveev V,
    6. Janout V,
    7. et al.
    LINE-1 methylation levels in leukocyte DNA and risk of renal cell cancer. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e27361.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Gibson TM,
    2. Brennan P,
    3. Han S,
    4. Karami S,
    5. Zaridze D,
    6. Janout V,
    7. et al.
    Comprehensive evaluation of one-carbon metabolism pathway gene variants and renal cell cancer risk. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e26165.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Ahmad ST,
    2. Arjumand W,
    3. Seth A,
    4. Saini AK,
    5. Sultana S
    . Methylation of the APAF-1 and DAPK-1 promoter region correlates with progression of renal cell carcinoma in North Indian population. Tumour Biol 2012;33:395–402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Ho PA,
    2. Kutny MA,
    3. Alonzo TA,
    4. Gerbing RB,
    5. Joaquin J,
    6. Raimondi SC,
    7. et al.
    Leukemic mutations in the methylation-associated genes DNMT3A and IDH2 are rare events in pediatric AML: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011;57:204–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Songserm N,
    2. Promthet S,
    3. Sithithaworn P,
    4. Pientong C,
    5. Ekalaksananan T,
    6. Chopjitt P,
    7. et al.
    Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma in high-risk area of Thailand: role of lifestyle, diet and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms. Cancer Epidemiol 2012;36:e89–94.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Eads CA,
    2. Danenberg KD,
    3. Kawakami K,
    4. Saltz LB,
    5. Blake C,
    6. Shibata D,
    7. et al.
    MethyLight: a high-throughput assay to measure DNA methylation. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:E32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Fazzari MJ,
    2. Greally JM
    . Introduction to epigenomics and epigenome-wide analysis. Methods Mol Biol 2010;620:243–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Weidlich S,
    2. Walsh K,
    3. Crowther D,
    4. Burczynski ME,
    5. Feuerstein G,
    6. Carey FA,
    7. et al.
    Pyrosequencing-based methods reveal marked inter-individual differences in oncogene mutation burden in human colorectal tumours. Br J Cancer 2011;105:246–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Tetzner R,
    2. Dietrich D,
    3. Distler J
    . Control of carry-over contamination for PCR-based DNA methylation quantification using bisulfite treated DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;35:e4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    1. Eads CA,
    2. Lord RV,
    3. Wickramasinghe K,
    4. Long TI,
    5. Kurumboor SK,
    6. Bernstein L,
    7. et al.
    Epigenetic patterns in the progression of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2001;61:3410–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    1. Eads CA,
    2. Lord RV,
    3. Kurumboor SK,
    4. Wickramasinghe K,
    5. Skinner ML,
    6. Long TI,
    7. et al.
    Fields of aberrant CpG island hypermethylation in Barrett's esophagus and associated adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2000;60:5021–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Zhou J,
    2. Cao J,
    3. Lu Z,
    4. Liu H,
    5. Deng D
    . A 115-bp MethyLight assay for detection of p16 (CDKN2A) methylation as a diagnostic biomarker in human tissues. BMC Med Genet 2011;12:67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Cantone L,
    2. Nordio F,
    3. Hou L,
    4. Apostoli P,
    5. Bonzini M,
    6. Tarantini L,
    7. et al.
    Inhalable metal-rich air particles and histone H3K4 dimethylation and H3K9 acetylation in a cross-sectional study of steel workers. Environ Health Perspect 2011;119:964–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Enroth S,
    2. Rada-Iglesisas A,
    3. Andersson R,
    4. Wallerman O,
    5. Wanders A,
    6. Pahlman L,
    7. et al.
    Cancer associated epigenetic transitions identified by genome-wide histone methylation binding profiles in human colorectal cancer samples and paired normal mucosa. BMC Cancer 2011;11:450.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Mo Q
    . A fully Bayesian hidden Ising model for ChIP-seq data analysis. Biostatistics 2012;13:113–28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. 92.↵
    1. Wang C,
    2. Caron M,
    3. Burdick D,
    4. Kang Z,
    5. Auld D,
    6. Hill WA,
    7. et al.
    A sensitive, homogeneous, and high-throughput assay for lysine-specific histone demethylases at the H3K4 site. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2012;10:179–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Pellegrini M,
    2. Ferrari R
    . Epigenetic analysis: ChIP-chip and ChIP-seq. Methods Mol Biol 2012;802:377–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Jayani RS,
    2. Ramanujam PL,
    3. Galande S
    . Studying histone modifications and their genomic functions by employing chromatin immunoprecipitation and immunoblotting. Methods Cell Biol 2010;98:35–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Liu BL,
    2. Cheng JX,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. Wang R,
    5. Zhang W,
    6. Lin H,
    7. et al.
    Global histone modification patterns as prognostic markers to classify glioma patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:2888–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Viertler C,
    2. Groelz D,
    3. Gundisch S,
    4. Kashofer K,
    5. Reischauer B,
    6. Riegman PH,
    7. et al.
    A new technology for stabilization of biomolecules in tissues for combined histological and molecular analyses. J Mol Diagn 2012;14:458–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Gordanpour A,
    2. Nam RK,
    3. Sugar L,
    4. Bacopulos S,
    5. Seth A
    . MicroRNA detection in prostate tumors by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). J Vis Exp 2012;14:e3874.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    1. Borgan E,
    2. Navon R,
    3. Vollan HK,
    4. Schlichting E,
    5. Sauer T,
    6. Yakhini Z,
    7. et al.
    Ischemia caused by time to freezing induces systematic microRNA and mRNA responses in cancer tissue. Mol Oncol 2011;5:564–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Smyth P,
    3. Flavin R,
    4. Cahill S,
    5. Denning K,
    6. Aherne S,
    7. et al.
    Comparison of miRNA expression patterns using total RNA extracted from matched samples of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cells and snap frozen cells. BMC Biotechnol 2007;7:36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Hunter MP,
    2. Ismail N,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. Aguda BD,
    5. Lee EJ,
    6. Yu L,
    7. et al.
    Detection of microRNA expression in human peripheral blood microvesicles. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e3694.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    1. Barton RH
    . A decade of advances in metabonomics. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2011;7:129–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Fan L,
    2. Zhang W,
    3. Yin M,
    4. Zhang T,
    5. Wu X,
    6. Zhang H,
    7. et al.
    Identification of metabolic biomarkers to diagnose epithelial ovarian cancer using a UPLC/QTOF/MS platform. Acta Oncol 2012;51:473–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Zhang T,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Yin M,
    4. Fan L,
    5. Zhang H,
    6. Zhao F,
    7. et al.
    Discrimination between malignant and benign ovarian tumors by plasma metabolomic profiling using ultra performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Clin Chim Acta 2012;413:861–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Bictash M,
    2. Ebbels TM,
    3. Chan Q,
    4. Loo RL,
    5. Yap IK,
    6. Brown IJ,
    7. et al.
    Opening up the “Black Box”: metabolic phenotyping and metabolome-wide association studies in epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:970–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Yap IK,
    2. Brown IJ,
    3. Chan Q,
    4. Wijeyesekera A,
    5. Garcia-Perez I,
    6. Bictash M,
    7. et al.
    Metabolome-wide association study identifies multiple biomarkers that discriminate north and south Chinese populations at differing risks of cardiovascular disease: INTERMAP study. J Proteome Res 2010;9:6647–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. Loo RL,
    2. Coen M,
    3. Ebbels T,
    4. Cloarec O,
    5. Maibaum E,
    6. Bictash M,
    7. et al.
    Metabolic profiling and population screening of analgesic usage in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy-based large-scale epidemiologic studies. Anal Chem 2009;81:5119–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Holmes E,
    2. Loo RL,
    3. Stamler J,
    4. Bictash M,
    5. Yap IK,
    6. Chan Q,
    7. et al.
    Human metabolic phenotype diversity and its association with diet and blood pressure. Nature 2008;453:396–400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Holmes E,
    2. Nicholson JK
    . Human metabolic phenotyping and metabolome wide association studies. Ernst Schering Found Symp Proc 2007:227–49.
  109. 109.↵
    1. Xiao JF,
    2. Varghese RS,
    3. Zhou B,
    4. Nezami Ranjbar MR,
    5. Zhao Y,
    6. Tsai TH,
    7. et al.
    LC-MS based serum metabolomics for identification of hepatocellular carcinoma biomarkers in Egyptian cohort. J Proteome Res 2012;11:5914–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    1. Nishiumi S,
    2. Kobayashi T,
    3. Ikeda A,
    4. Yoshie T,
    5. Kibi M,
    6. Izumi Y,
    7. et al.
    A novel serum metabolomics-based diagnostic approach for colorectal cancer. PLoS One 2012;7:e40459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    1. Rojo D,
    2. Barbas C,
    3. Ruperez FJ
    . LC-MS metabolomics of polar compounds. Bioanalysis 2012;4:1235–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. 112.↵
    1. Livengood P,
    2. Maciejewski R,
    3. Chen W,
    4. Ebert DS
    . OmicsVis: an interactive tool for visually analyzing metabolomics data. BMC Bioinformatics 2012;13 Suppl 8:S6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. 113.↵
    1. Xia J,
    2. Mandal R,
    3. Sinelnikov IV,
    4. Broadhurst D,
    5. Wishart DS
    . MetaboAnalyst 2.0–a comprehensive server for metabolomic data analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:W127–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. 114.↵
    1. Sugimoto M,
    2. Kawakami M,
    3. Robert M,
    4. Soga T,
    5. Tomita M
    . Bioinformatics tools for mass spectroscopy-based metabolomic data processing and analysis. Curr Bioinform 2012;7:96–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    1. Hnatyshyn S,
    2. Shipkova P
    . Automated and unbiased analysis of LC-MS metabolomic data. Bioanalysis 2012;4:541–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    1. Ludwig C,
    2. Gunther UL
    . MetaboLab–advanced NMR data processing and analysis for metabolomics. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Biswas A,
    2. Mynampati KC,
    3. Umashankar S,
    4. Reuben S,
    5. Parab G,
    6. Rao R,
    7. et al.
    MetDAT: a modular and workflow-based free online pipeline for mass spectrometry data processing, analysis and interpretation. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2639–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. 118.↵
    1. Xia J,
    2. Wishart DS
    . MetPA: a web-based metabolomics tool for pathway analysis and visualization. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2342–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. 119.↵
    1. Carroll AJ,
    2. Badger MR,
    3. Harvey Millar A
    . The MetabolomeExpress Project: enabling web-based processing, analysis and transparent dissemination of GC/MS metabolomics datasets. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11:376.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    1. Goodpaster AM,
    2. Romick-Rosendale LE,
    3. Kennedy MA
    . Statistical significance analysis of nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabonomics data. Anal Biochem 2010;401:134–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    1. Yuan M,
    2. Breitkopf SB,
    3. Yang X,
    4. Asara JM
    . A positive/negative ion-switching, targeted mass spectrometry-based metabolomics platform for bodily fluids, cells, and fresh and fixed tissue. Nat Protoc 2012;7:872–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.↵
    1. Greider CW
    . Telomerase discovery: the excitement of putting together pieces of the puzzle (Nobel lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2010;49:7422–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    1. Gilson E,
    2. Segal-Bendirdjian E
    . The telomere story or the triumph of an open-minded research. Biochimie 2010;92:321–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  124. 124.↵
    1. Greider CW
    . Telomeres. Curr Opin Cell Biol 1991;3:444–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  125. 125.↵
    1. Beattie TL,
    2. Zhou W,
    3. Robinson MO,
    4. Harrington L
    . Functional multimerization of the human telomerase reverse transcriptase. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:6151–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. 126.↵
    1. Nan H,
    2. Qureshi AA,
    3. Prescott J,
    4. De Vivo I,
    5. Han J
    . Genetic variants in telomere-maintaining genes and skin cancer risk. Hum Genet 2011;129:247–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. 127.↵
    1. Prescott J,
    2. Wentzensen IM,
    3. Savage SA,
    4. De Vivo I
    . Epidemiologic evidence for a role of telomere dysfunction in cancer etiology. Mutat Res 2012;730:75–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    1. Hofer P,
    2. Baierl A,
    3. Feik E,
    4. Fuhrlinger G,
    5. Leeb G,
    6. Mach K,
    7. et al.
    MNS16A tandem repeats minisatellite of human telomerase gene: a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 2011;32:866–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. 129.↵
    1. Winnikow EP,
    2. Medeiros LR,
    3. Edelweiss MI,
    4. Rosa DD,
    5. Edelweiss M,
    6. Simoes PW,
    7. et al.
    Accuracy of telomerase in estimating breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2012;21:1–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    1. Mirabello L,
    2. Yu K,
    3. Kraft P,
    4. De Vivo I,
    5. Hunter DJ,
    6. Prescott J,
    7. et al.
    The association of telomere length and genetic variation in telomere biology genes. Hum Mutat 2010;31:1050–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    1. Johnatty SE,
    2. Beesley J,
    3. Chen X,
    4. Macgregor S,
    5. Duffy DL,
    6. Spurdle AB,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of candidate stromal epithelial cross-talk genes identifies association between risk of serous ovarian cancer and TERT, a cancer susceptibility “hot-spot”. PLoS Genet 2010;6:e1001016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.↵
    1. Petersen GM,
    2. Amundadottir L,
    3. Fuchs CS,
    4. Kraft P,
    5. Stolzenberg-Solomon RZ,
    6. Jacobs KB,
    7. et al.
    A genome-wide association study identifies pancreatic cancer susceptibility loci on chromosomes 13q22.1, 1q32.1 and 5p15.33. Nat Genet 2010;42:224–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    1. Rafnar T,
    2. Sulem P,
    3. Stacey SN,
    4. Geller F,
    5. Gudmundsson J,
    6. Sigurdsson A,
    7. et al.
    Sequence variants at the TERT-CLPTM1L locus associate with many cancer types. Nat Genet 2009;41:221–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. 134.↵
    1. Terry KL,
    2. Tworoger SS,
    3. Vitonis AF,
    4. Wong J,
    5. Titus-Ernstoff L,
    6. De Vivo I,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length and genetic variation in telomere maintenance genes in relation to ovarian cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:504–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  135. 135.↵
    1. Meeker AK,
    2. Gage WR,
    3. Hicks JL,
    4. Simon I,
    5. Coffman JR,
    6. Platz EA,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length assessment in human archival tissues: combined telomere fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Am J Pathol 2002;160:1259–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    1. Zhou X,
    2. Meeker AK,
    3. Makambi KH,
    4. Kosti O,
    5. Kallakury BV,
    6. Sidawy MK,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length variation in normal epithelial cells adjacent to tumor: potential biomarker for breast cancer local recurrence. Carcinogenesis 2012;33:113–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. 137.↵
    1. Barwell J,
    2. Pangon L,
    3. Georgiou A,
    4. Docherty Z,
    5. Kesterton I,
    6. Ball J,
    7. et al.
    Is telomere length in peripheral blood lymphocytes correlated with cancer susceptibility or radiosensitivity? Br J Cancer 2007;97:1696–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.↵
    1. De Vivo I,
    2. Prescott J,
    3. Wong JY,
    4. Kraft P,
    5. Hankinson SE,
    6. Hunter DJ
    . A prospective study of relative telomere length and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1152–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. 139.↵
    1. Svenson U,
    2. Nordfjall K,
    3. Stegmayr B,
    4. Manjer J,
    5. Nilsson P,
    6. Tavelin B,
    7. et al.
    Breast cancer survival is associated with telomere length in peripheral blood cells. Cancer Res 2008;68:3618–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    1. Divella R,
    2. Daniele A,
    3. Gadaleta C,
    4. Tufaro A,
    5. Venneri MT,
    6. Paradiso A,
    7. et al.
    Circulating transforming growth factor-beta and epidermal growth factor receptor as related to virus infection in liver carcinogenesis. Anticancer Res 2012;32:141–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  141. 141.↵
    1. El-Tayeh SF,
    2. Hussein TD,
    3. El-Houseini ME,
    4. Amer MA,
    5. El-Sherbini M,
    6. Elshemey WM
    . Serological biomarkers of hepatocellular carcinoma in Egyptian patients. Dis Markers 2012;32:255–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. 142.↵
    1. Qu Z,
    2. Cui N,
    3. Qin M,
    4. Wu X
    . Epidemiological survey of biomarkers of hepatitis virus in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2012;8:83–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  143. 143.↵
    1. Yu X,
    2. Zhang J,
    3. Hong L,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Yuan Z,
    6. Zhang X,
    7. et al.
    High prevalence of human parvovirus 4 infection in HBV and HCV infected individuals in shanghai. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e29474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. 144.↵
    1. Li G,
    2. Ruan X,
    3. Auerbach RK,
    4. Sandhu KS,
    5. Zheng M,
    6. Wang P,
    7. et al.
    Extensive promoter-centered chromatin interactions provide a topological basis for transcription regulation. Cell 2012;148:84–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. 145.↵
    1. Ioannidis JP,
    2. Khoury MJ
    . Improving validation practices in “omics” research. Science 2011;334:1230–2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  146. 146.↵
    1. Ioannidis JP
    . A roadmap for successful applications of clinical proteomics. Proteomics Clin Appl 2011;5:241–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. 147.↵
    1. Castaldi PJ,
    2. Dahabreh IJ,
    3. Ioannidis JP
    . An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers. Brief Bioinform 2011;12:189–202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  148. 148.↵
    1. Ioannidis JP
    . Expectations, validity, and reality in omics. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:945–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. 149.↵
    1. Gallo V,
    2. Egger M,
    3. McCormack V,
    4. Farmer PB,
    5. Ioannidis JP,
    6. Kirsch-Volders M,
    7. et al.
    STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur J Clin Invest 2012;42:1–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  150. 150.↵
    1. von Elm E,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Egger M,
    4. Pocock SJ,
    5. Gotzsche PC,
    6. Vandenbroucke JP
    . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007;4:e296.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. McShane LM,
    3. Sauerbrei W,
    4. Taube SE
    . Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. 152.↵
    1. Alsheikh-Ali AA,
    2. Qureshi W,
    3. Al-Mallah MH,
    4. Ioannidis JP
    . Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e24357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. 153.
    1. Marsit CJ,
    2. Koestler DC,
    3. Christensen BC,
    4. Karagas MR,
    5. Houseman EA,
    6. Kelsey KT
    . DNA methylation array analysis identifies profiles of blood-derived DNA methylation associated with bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1133–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.
    1. Zhu Y,
    2. Stevens RG,
    3. Hoffman AE,
    4. Tjonneland A,
    5. Vogel UB,
    6. Zheng T,
    7. et al.
    Epigenetic impact of long-term shiftwork: pilot evidence from circadian genes and whole-genome methylation analysis. Chronobiol Int 2011;28:852–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  155. 155.
    1. Bullinger L,
    2. Ehrich M,
    3. Dohner K,
    4. Schlenk RF,
    5. Dohner H,
    6. Nelson MR,
    7. et al.
    Quantitative DNA methylation predicts survival in adult acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2010;115:636–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  156. 156.
    1. Hong YS,
    2. Kang HJ,
    3. Kwak JY,
    4. Park BL,
    5. You CH,
    6. Kim YM,
    7. et al.
    Association between microRNA196a2 rs11614913 genotypes and the risk of non-small cell lung cancer in Korean population. J Prev Med Public Health 2011;44:125–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. 157.
    1. Leite KR,
    2. Tomiyama A,
    3. Reis ST,
    4. Sousa-Canavez JM,
    5. Sanudo A,
    6. Dall'Oglio MF,
    7. et al.
    MicroRNA-100 expression is independently related to biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;185:1118–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. 158.
    1. Li J,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Yu W,
    4. Chen J,
    5. Luo J
    . Expression of serum miR-221 in human hepatocellular carcinoma and its prognostic significance. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2011;406:70–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  159. 159.
    1. Zhao R,
    2. Wu J,
    3. Jia W,
    4. Gong C,
    5. Yu F,
    6. Ren Z,
    7. et al.
    Plasma miR-221 as a predictive biomarker for chemoresistance in breast cancer patients who previously received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Onkologie 2011;34:675–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. 160.
    1. Lynch SM,
    2. Weinstein SJ,
    3. Virtamo J,
    4. Lan Q,
    5. Liu CS,
    6. Cheng WL,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA copy number and pancreatic cancer in the alpha-tocopherol beta-carotene cancer prevention study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2011;4:1912–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  161. 161.
    1. Audet-Walsh E,
    2. Lepine J,
    3. Gregoire J,
    4. Plante M,
    5. Caron P,
    6. Tetu B,
    7. et al.
    Profiling of endogenous estrogens, their precursors, and metabolites in endometrial cancer patients: association with risk and relationship to clinical characteristics. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:E330–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  162. 162.
    1. Gallagher RP,
    2. Macarthur AC,
    3. Lee TK,
    4. Weber JP,
    5. Leblanc A,
    6. Mark Elwood J,
    7. et al.
    Plasma levels of polychlorinated biphenyls and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a preliminary study. Int J Cancer 2011;128:1872–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  163. 163.
    1. Bitisik O,
    2. Yavuz S,
    3. Yasasever V,
    4. Dalay N
    . Telomerase activity in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and lymphoma. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol 2000;107:3–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  164. 164.
    1. Tatsuma T,
    2. Goto S,
    3. Kitano S,
    4. Lin YC,
    5. Lee CM,
    6. Chen CL
    . Telomerase activity in peripheral blood for diagnosis of hepatoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;15:1064–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. 165.
    1. van Bemmel D,
    2. Lenz P,
    3. Liao LM,
    4. Baris D,
    5. Sternberg LR,
    6. Warner AC,
    7. et al.
    Correlation of LINE-1 methylation levels in patient matched buffy coat, serum, buccal cell and bladder tumor tissue DNA samples. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1143–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  166. 166.
    1. Szaumkessel M,
    2. Richter J,
    3. Giefing M,
    4. Jarmuz M,
    5. Kiwerska K,
    6. Tonnies H,
    7. et al.
    Pyrosequencing-based DNA methylation profiling of Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway genes in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oncol 2011;39:505–14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  167. 167.
    1. Tan D,
    2. Goerlitz DS,
    3. Dumitrescu RG,
    4. Han D,
    5. Seillier-Moiseiwitsch F,
    6. Spernak SM,
    7. et al.
    Associations between cigarette smoking and mitochondrial DNA abnormalities in buccal cells. Carcinogenesis 2008;29:1170–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  168. 168.
    1. Shen C,
    2. Hu L,
    3. Xia L,
    4. Li Y
    . The detection of circulating tumor cells of breast cancer patients by using multimarker (Survivin, hTERT and hMAM) quantitative real-time PCR. Clin Biochem 2009;42:194–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. 169.
    1. Wong CM,
    2. Anderton DL,
    3. Smith-Schneider S,
    4. Wing MA,
    5. Greven MC,
    6. Arcaro KF
    . Quantitative analysis of promoter methylation in exfoliated epithelial cells isolated from breast milk of healthy women. Epigenetics 2010;5:645–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.
    1. Browne EP,
    2. Punska EC,
    3. Lenington S,
    4. Otis CN,
    5. Anderton DL,
    6. Arcaro KF
    . Increased promoter methylation in exfoliated breast epithelial cells in women with a previous breast biopsy. Epigenetics 2011;6:1425–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. 171.
    1. Masayesva BG,
    2. Mambo E,
    3. Taylor RJ,
    4. Goloubeva OG,
    5. Zhou S,
    6. Cohen Y,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA content increase in response to cigarette smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:19–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  172. 172.
    1. Dasgupta S,
    2. Shao C,
    3. Keane TE,
    4. Duberow DP,
    5. Mathies RA,
    6. Fisher PB,
    7. et al.
    Detection of mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid alterations in urine from urothelial cell carcinoma patients. Int J Cancer 2012;131:158–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  173. 173.
    1. Whittaker RG,
    2. Blackwood JK,
    3. Alston CL,
    4. Blakely EL,
    5. Elson JL,
    6. McFarland R,
    7. et al.
    Urine heteroplasmy is the best predictor of clinical outcome in the m.3243A>G mtDNA mutation. Neurology 2009;72:568–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  174. 174.
    1. Antill YC,
    2. Mitchell G,
    3. Johnson SA,
    4. Devereux L,
    5. Milner A,
    6. Di Iulio J,
    7. et al.
    Gene methylation in breast ductal fluid from BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:265–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  175. 175.
    1. Krassenstein R,
    2. Sauter E,
    3. Dulaimi E,
    4. Battagli C,
    5. Ehya H,
    6. Klein-Szanto A,
    7. et al.
    Detection of breast cancer in nipple aspirate fluid by CpG island hypermethylation. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:28–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  176. 176.
    1. Jakupciak JP,
    2. Maggrah A,
    3. Maragh S,
    4. Maki J,
    5. Reguly B,
    6. Maki K,
    7. et al.
    Facile whole mitochondrial genome resequencing from nipple aspirate fluid using MitoChip v2.0. BMC Cancer 2008;8:95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. 177.
    1. Zhu W,
    2. Qin W,
    3. Bradley P,
    4. Wessel A,
    5. Puckett CL,
    6. Sauter ER
    . Mitochondrial DNA mutations in breast cancer tissue and in matched nipple aspirate fluid. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:145–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  178. 178.
    1. Isaacs C,
    2. Cavalli LR,
    3. Cohen Y,
    4. Pennanen M,
    5. Shankar LK,
    6. Freedman M,
    7. et al.
    Detection of LOH and mitochondrial DNA alterations in ductal lavage and nipple aspirate fluids from hngh-risk patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004;84:99–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. 179.
    1. Thompson PA,
    2. Hsu CH,
    3. Green S,
    4. Stopeck AT,
    5. Johnson K,
    6. Alberts DS,
    7. et al.
    Sulindac and sulindac metabolites in nipple aspirate fluid and effect on drug targets in a phase I trial. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2010;3:101–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  180. 180.
    1. Mannello F,
    2. Tonti GA,
    3. Pagliarani S,
    4. Benedetti S,
    5. Canestrari F,
    6. Zhu W,
    7. et al.
    The 8-epimer of prostaglandin F(2alpha), a marker of lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress, is decreased in the nipple aspirate fluid of women with breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1971–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  181. 181.
    1. Kim SJ,
    2. Kelly WK,
    3. Fu A,
    4. Haines K,
    5. Hoffman A,
    6. Zheng T,
    7. et al.
    Genome-wide methylation analysis identifies involvement of TNF-alpha mediated cancer pathways in prostate cancer. Cancer Lett 2011;302:47–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. 182.
    1. Peurala H,
    2. Greco D,
    3. Heikkinen T,
    4. Kaur S,
    5. Bartkova J,
    6. Jamshidi M,
    7. et al.
    MiR-34a expression has an effect for lower risk of metastasis and associates with expression patterns predicting clinical outcome in breast cancer. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e26122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. 183.
    1. Song JS,
    2. Kim YS,
    3. Kim DK,
    4. Park SI,
    5. Jang SJ
    . Global histone modification pattern associated with recurrence and disease-free survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Pathol Int 2012;62:182–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  184. 184.
    1. Eggers H,
    2. Steffens S,
    3. Grosshennig A,
    4. Becker JU,
    5. Hennenlotter J,
    6. Stenzl A,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic and diagnostic relevance of hypermethylated in cancer 1 (HIC1) CpG island methylation in renal cell carcinoma. Int J Oncol 2012;40:1650–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  185. 185.
    1. Kuhn E,
    2. Meeker AK,
    3. Visvanathan K,
    4. Gross AL,
    5. Wang TL,
    6. Kurman RJ,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length in different histologic types of ovarian carcinoma with emphasis on clear cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2011;24:1139–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. 186.
    1. Chen T,
    2. He J,
    3. Shen L,
    4. Fang H,
    5. Nie H,
    6. Jin T,
    7. et al.
    The mitochondrial DNA 4,977-bp deletion and its implication in copy number alteration in colorectal cancer. BMC Med Genet 2011;12:8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. 187.
    1. Yuan JM,
    2. Gao YT,
    3. Murphy SE,
    4. Carmella SG,
    5. Wang R,
    6. Zhong Y,
    7. et al.
    Urinary levels of cigarette smoke constituent metabolites are prospectively associated with lung cancer development in smokers. Cancer Res 2011;71:6749–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  188. 188.
    1. Benowitz NL,
    2. Dains KM,
    3. Dempsey D,
    4. Wilson M,
    5. Jacob P
    . Racial differences in the relationship between number of cigarettes smoked and nicotine and carcinogen exposure. Nicotine Tob Res 2011;13:772–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  189. 189.
    1. Torroni A,
    2. Wallace DC
    . Mitochondrial DNA variation in human populations and implications for detection of mitochondrial DNA mutations of pathological significance. J Bioenerg Biomembr 1994;26:261–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. 190.
    1. Bhat A,
    2. Koul A,
    3. Sharma S,
    4. Rai E,
    5. Bukhari SI,
    6. Dhar MK,
    7. et al.
    The possible role of 10398A and 16189C mtDNA variants in providing susceptibility to T2DM in two North Indian populations: a replicative study. Hum Genet 2007;120:821–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. 191.
    1. Xing J,
    2. Chen M,
    3. Wood CG,
    4. Lin J,
    5. Spitz MR,
    6. Ma J,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA content: its genetic heritability and association with renal cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1104–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  192. 192.
    1. Ye C,
    2. Gao YT,
    3. Wen W,
    4. Breyer JP,
    5. Shu XO,
    6. Smith JR,
    7. et al.
    Association of mitochondrial DNA displacement loop (CA)n dinucleotide repeat polymorphism with breast cancer risk and survival among Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:2117–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  193. 193.
    1. Dasgupta S,
    2. Soudry E,
    3. Mukhopadhyay N,
    4. Shao C,
    5. Yee J,
    6. Lam S,
    7. et al.
    Mitochondrial DNA mutations in respiratory complex-I in never-smoker lung cancer patients contribute to lung cancer progression and associated with EGFR gene mutation. J Cell Physiol 2012;227:2451–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  194. 194.
    1. Zheng S,
    2. Qian P,
    3. Li F,
    4. Qian G,
    5. Wang C,
    6. Wu G,
    7. et al.
    Association of mitochondrial DNA variations with lung cancer risk in a Han Chinese population from southwestern China. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e31322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. 195.
    1. Marsit CJ,
    2. Houseman EA,
    3. Christensen BC,
    4. Gagne L,
    5. Wrensch MR,
    6. Nelson HH,
    7. et al.
    Identification of methylated genes associated with aggressive bladder cancer. PLoS ONE 2010;5:e12334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. 196.
    1. Floegel A,
    2. Drogan D,
    3. Wang-Sattler R,
    4. Prehn C,
    5. Illig T,
    6. Adamski J,
    7. et al.
    Reliability of serum metabolite concentrations over a 4-month period using a targeted metabolomic approach. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e21103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  197. 197.
    1. Chai W,
    2. Bostick RM,
    3. Ahearn TU,
    4. Franke AA,
    5. Custer LJ,
    6. Cooney RV
    . Effects of vitamin D3 and calcium supplementation on serum levels of tocopherols, retinol, and specific vitamin D metabolites. Nutr Cancer 2012;64:57–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  198. 198.
    1. Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A,
    2. Shore RE,
    3. Afanasyeva Y,
    4. Lukanova A,
    5. Sieri S,
    6. Koenig KL,
    7. et al.
    Postmenopausal circulating levels of 2- and 16alpha-hydroxyestrone and risk of endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer 2011;105:1458–64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. 199.
    1. Sreekumar A,
    2. Poisson LM,
    3. Rajendiran TM,
    4. Khan AP,
    5. Cao Q,
    6. Yu J,
    7. et al.
    Metabolomic profiles delineate potential role for sarcosine in prostate cancer progression. Nature 2009;457:910–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. 200.
    1. Mocellin S,
    2. Verdi D,
    3. Pooley KA,
    4. Landi MT,
    5. Egan KM,
    6. Baird DM,
    7. et al.
    Telomerase reverse transcriptase locus polymorphisms and cancer risk: a field synopsis and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:840–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  201. 201.
    1. Zienolddiny S,
    2. Skaug V,
    3. Landvik NE,
    4. Ryberg D,
    5. Phillips DH,
    6. Houlston R,
    7. et al.
    The TERT-CLPTM1L lung cancer susceptibility variant associates with higher DNA adduct formation in the lung. Carcinogenesis 2009;30:1368–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  202. 202.
    1. Chang J,
    2. Dinney CP,
    3. Huang M,
    4. Wu X,
    5. Gu J
    . Genetic variants in telomere-maintenance genes and bladder cancer risk. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e30665.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  203. 203.
    1. Wauters E,
    2. Smeets D,
    3. Coolen J,
    4. Verschakelen J,
    5. De Leyn P,
    6. Decramer M,
    7. et al.
    The TERT-CLPTM1L locus for lung cancer predisposes to bronchial obstruction and emphysema. Eur Respir J 2011;38:924–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  204. 204.
    1. Pande M,
    2. Spitz MR,
    3. Wu X,
    4. Gorlov IP,
    5. Chen WV,
    6. Amos CI
    . Novel genetic variants in the chromosome 5p15.33 region associate with lung cancer risk. Carcinogenesis 2011;32:1493–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  205. 205.
    1. Lu L,
    2. Zhang C,
    3. Zhu G,
    4. Irwin M,
    5. Risch H,
    6. Menato G,
    7. et al.
    Telomerase expression and telomere length in breast cancer and their associations with adjuvant treatment and disease outcome. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:R56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 22 (2)
February 2013
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Opportunities and Challenges for Selected Emerging Technologies in Cancer Epidemiology: Mitochondrial, Epigenomic, Metabolomic, and Telomerase Profiling
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Opportunities and Challenges for Selected Emerging Technologies in Cancer Epidemiology: Mitochondrial, Epigenomic, Metabolomic, and Telomerase Profiling
Mukesh Verma, Muin J. Khoury and John P.A. Ioannidis
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2013 (22) (2) 189-200; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1263

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Opportunities and Challenges for Selected Emerging Technologies in Cancer Epidemiology: Mitochondrial, Epigenomic, Metabolomic, and Telomerase Profiling
Mukesh Verma, Muin J. Khoury and John P.A. Ioannidis
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev February 1 2013 (22) (2) 189-200; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1263
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Mitochondrial DNA
    • Epigenomics
    • Metabolomics
    • Telomerase
    • Comments and Conclusions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Epigenetic alterations and cervical cancer development
  • Area-Level Variation and HPV Vaccination
  • Lessons Learned from Setting Up a Prospective Study
Show more Review
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement