Sadanandam Anguraj, Wang Xin, de Sousa E Melo Felipe, Gray Joe W, Vermeulen Louis, Hanahan Douglas, Medema Jan Paul
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics; Lausanne, Switzerland; Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL); Lausanne, Switzerland.
Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute; University of Cambridge; Cambridge, UK.
Cell Cycle. 2014;13(3):353-7. doi: 10.4161/cc.27769. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
Recently we published two independent studies describing novel gene expression-based classifications of colorectal cancer (CRC). Notably, each study stratified CRC into a different number of subtypes: one reported 3 subtypes, whereas the second highlighted 5. Given that each ascribed clinical significance, distinctive biology, and therapeutic prognosis to the different subtypes, we sought to reconcile this apparent incongruity in subtype stratification of CRC, and to interrelate the results. To do so, we each evaluated the other's data sets and analytical methods and discovered that the subtypes and their classifiers are, in fact, clearly related to each other; indeed, the 5 subtype outcomes can be coalesced into the same three. In addition to presenting this clarification, we briefly discuss how both classification methods can be viewed within the broader literature on CRC subtypes, and potentially applied.
最近我们发表了两项独立研究，描述了基于基因表达的新型结直肠癌（CRC）分类。值得注意的是，每项研究将CRC分层为不同数量的亚型：一项报告了3个亚型，而另一项则强调了5个亚型。鉴于每项研究都赋予了不同亚型临床意义、独特生物学特性和治疗预后，我们试图调和CRC亚型分层中这种明显的不一致，并将结果相互关联。为此，我们各自评估了对方的数据集和分析方法，发现这些亚型及其分类器实际上彼此明显相关；事实上，5个亚型的结果可以合并为相同的3个。除了给出这一解释外，我们还简要讨论了这两种分类方法如何在关于CRC亚型的更广泛文献中看待，以及可能的应用方式。
