He difference in signal intensities was quite uniform among the samples

He difference in signal intensities was quite uniform among the samples from the 2 groups (Figure 2, panels B and C).Validation of Genes with HG-ST1.0 Microarray and Quantitative Real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)A total of 8,370 genes were validated with microarray HGST1.0 in 24 samples explored with the Castanospermine web HG-Focus microarray, including 19 CC samples and 5 healthy purchase TA-02 cervical epitheliums. Highly significant positive correlations (p,1610215, Pearson’s correlation) were found between the HG-ST1.0 and HG-Focus microarray values. The global correlation between the 2 arrays was 0.68 and the correlation coefficients between the individual tumors ranged from 0.57 to 0.72 (average, 0.68). Gene expression values of 826 out of 997 (82.8 ) genes expressed differently between the cancer and control samples, including the 23 genes selected for validation (Figure 3), showed significant positive correlations (p,0.05, Pearson’s correlation) between the 2 microarrays. The correlation coefficients between the individualgenes ranged from 0.34 to 0.95 and the average was 0.63 (Figure S1). On the other hand, the expression of the 23 genes selected for validation was measured with qRT-PCR in a total of 44 HPV16positive cancer samples and 25 healthy cervical epitheliums, including almost all samples previously determined with MA (Table S1). A highly significant positive correlation (p,0.0001, Pearson’s correlation) was found between the qRT-PCR and MA log2 values in 21 of the 23 measured genes. The correlation coefficients ranged from 0.31 to 0.85 and the median was 0.73. The 2 genes that had non-significant correlations (NDN and SLC18A2) were excluded from the rest of the analysis. These data indicated that the expression values calculated from the microarrays were fairly reliable because 91 of validated genes had a significant correlation. Since the qRT-PCR expression values of 87 of the measured genes did not follow a normal distribution, the median rather than the mean was used for the calculations of FCs. Genes were listed in decreasing order by the FC (Table 2) and at the top of this list is MKI67, which is followed in decreasing order by CDKN2A, SYCP2, PCNA, NUSAP1, and CDC2. It is worth noting that the FCs of MKI67 (1,651), and CDKN2A (387) are at least 5 times higher than the FC of the gene that follows on the list (SYCP2; FC = 73.8). Of the top 10 ranked upregulated genes, 2 have not been previously reported as associated with cervical cancer (NUSAP1, and CDKN3), while the other 8 have been associated with cervical cancer either scantly (SYCP2, PRC1, CCNB2 and CDC20) or widely (MKI67, CDKN2A, CDC2, and PCNA). MCM2 and TOP2A, which have been widely reported as associated with cervical cancer, ranked 15th and 18th on the list, respectively. The 3 downregulated genes that had a significant Pearson’s correlation also had a high FC (controls vs. cancers), especially END3 (FC = 1,425.7) and WISP2 (FC = 167.7; Table 2). The box plots (Figure 4 and Figure S2) clearly show the difference in gene expression between the cancer and control groups (p,1610215 for all genes, Mann hitney U test). To establish a separation line between the 2 groups and the potential value of these genes as markers of cervical cancer, cut-off values were established by analyzing ROC curves. In general, ROC curves with an area under the curve (AUC) #0.75 are not clinically useful, while an AUC of 0.97 has a very high clinical value [36]. The AUC of 11 upregulated genes (CDKN2A, MKI67, PRC1, CDC2,.He difference in signal intensities was quite uniform among the samples from the 2 groups (Figure 2, panels B and C).Validation of Genes with HG-ST1.0 Microarray and Quantitative Real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)A total of 8,370 genes were validated with microarray HGST1.0 in 24 samples explored with the HG-Focus microarray, including 19 CC samples and 5 healthy cervical epitheliums. Highly significant positive correlations (p,1610215, Pearson’s correlation) were found between the HG-ST1.0 and HG-Focus microarray values. The global correlation between the 2 arrays was 0.68 and the correlation coefficients between the individual tumors ranged from 0.57 to 0.72 (average, 0.68). Gene expression values of 826 out of 997 (82.8 ) genes expressed differently between the cancer and control samples, including the 23 genes selected for validation (Figure 3), showed significant positive correlations (p,0.05, Pearson’s correlation) between the 2 microarrays. The correlation coefficients between the individualgenes ranged from 0.34 to 0.95 and the average was 0.63 (Figure S1). On the other hand, the expression of the 23 genes selected for validation was measured with qRT-PCR in a total of 44 HPV16positive cancer samples and 25 healthy cervical epitheliums, including almost all samples previously determined with MA (Table S1). A highly significant positive correlation (p,0.0001, Pearson’s correlation) was found between the qRT-PCR and MA log2 values in 21 of the 23 measured genes. The correlation coefficients ranged from 0.31 to 0.85 and the median was 0.73. The 2 genes that had non-significant correlations (NDN and SLC18A2) were excluded from the rest of the analysis. These data indicated that the expression values calculated from the microarrays were fairly reliable because 91 of validated genes had a significant correlation. Since the qRT-PCR expression values of 87 of the measured genes did not follow a normal distribution, the median rather than the mean was used for the calculations of FCs. Genes were listed in decreasing order by the FC (Table 2) and at the top of this list is MKI67, which is followed in decreasing order by CDKN2A, SYCP2, PCNA, NUSAP1, and CDC2. It is worth noting that the FCs of MKI67 (1,651), and CDKN2A (387) are at least 5 times higher than the FC of the gene that follows on the list (SYCP2; FC = 73.8). Of the top 10 ranked upregulated genes, 2 have not been previously reported as associated with cervical cancer (NUSAP1, and CDKN3), while the other 8 have been associated with cervical cancer either scantly (SYCP2, PRC1, CCNB2 and CDC20) or widely (MKI67, CDKN2A, CDC2, and PCNA). MCM2 and TOP2A, which have been widely reported as associated with cervical cancer, ranked 15th and 18th on the list, respectively. The 3 downregulated genes that had a significant Pearson’s correlation also had a high FC (controls vs. cancers), especially END3 (FC = 1,425.7) and WISP2 (FC = 167.7; Table 2). The box plots (Figure 4 and Figure S2) clearly show the difference in gene expression between the cancer and control groups (p,1610215 for all genes, Mann hitney U test). To establish a separation line between the 2 groups and the potential value of these genes as markers of cervical cancer, cut-off values were established by analyzing ROC curves. In general, ROC curves with an area under the curve (AUC) #0.75 are not clinically useful, while an AUC of 0.97 has a very high clinical value [36]. The AUC of 11 upregulated genes (CDKN2A, MKI67, PRC1, CDC2,.