👤 Mônica R Gadelha

Studies addressing the methylation pattern in adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma (ACP) are lacking. To identify methylation signatures in ACPs regarding clinical presentation and outcome. Clinical and pathology data were collected from 35 patients with ACP (54% male; 18.1 years [2-68]). CTNNB1 mutations and methylation profile (MethylationEPIC/Array-Illumina) were analyzed in tumoral DNA. Unsupervised machine learning analysis of this comprehensive methylome sample was achieved using hierarchical clustering and multidimensional scaling. Statistical associations between clusters and clinical features were achieved using the Fisher test and global biological process interpretations were aided by Gene Ontology enrichment analyses. Two clusters were revealed consistently by all unsupervised methods (ACP-1: n = 18; ACP-2: n = 17) with strong bootstrap statistical support. ACP-2 was enriched by CTNNB1 mutations (100% vs 56%, P = .0006), hypomethylated in CpG island, non-CpG Island sites, and globally (P < .001), and associated with greater tumor size (24.1 vs 9.5 cm3, P = .04). Enrichment analysis highlighted pathways on signaling transduction, transmembrane receptor, development of anatomical structures, cell adhesion, cytoskeleton organization, and cytokine binding, and cell type-specific biological processes as regulation of oligodendrocytes, keratinocyte, and epithelial cells differentiation. Two clusters of patients with ACP were consistently revealed by unsupervised machine learning methods, with one of them significantly hypomethylated, enriched by CTNNB1 mutated ACPs, and associated with increased tumor size. Enrichment analysis reinforced pathways involved in tumor proliferation and in cell-specific tumoral microenvironment. Show less

To analyze the expression of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor (GIPR) in somatotropinomas specimens and compare clinical, biochemical, radiological, therapeutic, molecular, and pathological data among those who overexpressed (GIPR +) and those who did not overexpress (GIPR - ) GIPR. Clinical, biochemical, radiological, molecular, and pathological data were collected. GNAS1 sequencing was performed with the Sanger method. Protein expression of somatostatin receptor subtypes 2 and 5 and CAM 5.2 were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Quantitative real-time PCR was performed to analyze the mRNA expression of GIPR with the TaqMan® method. Positive expression was considered when the fold change (FC) was above 17.2 (GIPR +). A total of 74 patients (54% female) were included. Eighteen tumors (24%) were GIPR + . Gsp mutation was detected in 30 tumors (40%). GIPR + tumors were more frequently densely granulated adenomas (83% vs 47%, p = 0.028). There was no difference in clinical, biochemical, radiological, therapeutic (surgical cure or response to medical therapy), or other pathological features between GIPR + and GIPR -  tumors. Twenty-eight out of 56 (50%) GIPR -  tumors harbored a gsp mutation, whereas two out of 18 (11%) GIPR + tumors harbored a gsp mutation (p = 0.005). We described, for the first time, that GIPR + and gsp mutations are not mutually exclusive, but gsp mutations are less common in GIPR + tumors. GIPR + and GIPR -  tumors have similar clinical, biochemical, radiological, therapeutic, and pathological features, with the exception of a high frequency of densely granulated adenomas among GIPR + tumors. Show less