This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jones, C. D. Articles by Zehnder, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, C. D. Articles by Zehnder, J. L.

JMD 2004, Vol. 6, No. 2
Copyright © 2004 American Society for Investigative Pathology & Association for Molecular Pathology

CyclinD1/CyclinD3 Ratio by Real-Time PCR Improves Specificity for the Diagnosis of Mantle Cell Lymphoma

From the Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We developed a real-time, quantitative, reverse transcription PCR assay for cyclin D1 (CCND1) expression to aid in the diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The diagnosis of MCL can be problematic, and existing CCND1 expression assays show a lack of specificity, with elevated expression also detected in other lymphoproliferative disorders. We postulated that evaluating CCND1 expression relative to CCND3 expression by quantitative PCR could offer an improved specificity over an evaluation of CCND1 alone. This method quantitates both CCND1 and CCND3, each normalized to a housekeeping gene (GADPH), using the 5'-exonuclease technique. We analyzed 107 clinical specimens: MCL (17), chronic lymphocytic leukemias (CLL) (10), other non-MCL hematolymphoid disorders (41), non-malignant tissues with an epithelial component (7) and other normal samples (32). This method correctly identified 16 of 17 MCLs, and there were no false positives among any of the other diagnostic groups tested including CLL. CLL presents the major diagnostic dilemma at this institution when diagnosing MCL. Sensitivity studies showed that this method could detect an elevated CCND1/CCND3 ratio when the tumor infiltrate is at least 10% of the cells. We compared the specificity of CCND1 expression alone against the CCND1/CCND3 ratio to demonstrate the increased specificity for the latter. We conclude that the CCND1/CCND3 ratio is a sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of MCL.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) comprises approximately 6% of all non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) and is derived from naïve, pre-germinal center B cells.¹ MCL is characterized cytogenetically by the t(11;14), although the t(11;14) is also occasionally present in other hematolymphoid neoplasms including other NHLs, multiple myeloma (MM), atypical chronic lymphocytic leukemias (CLL), and splenic lymphoma with villous lymphocytes (SLVL).^{2, 3, 4} The translocation brings the cyclin D1 (CCND1) gene at 11q23 under the control of the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene on chromosome 14, resulting in an overexpression of CCND1.² CCND1 plays an important role in regulating the transition from G1 to S phase during the cell cycle.⁵ CCND1 binds to and activates a cyclin-dependent kinase. The activated complex then binds to and inactivates the retinoblastoma protein through phosphorylation, removing its inhibition of transcription factor E2F, which then leads to the transcription of DNA synthesis genes. An increase in CCND1 thereby shortens the time a cell spends in the resting G phase, and accelerates the transition into the S phase.⁶

The diagnosis of MCL has important implications for prognosis and treatment because the clinical course is aggressive and MCL often responds poorly to conventional B-NHL therapies.² The morphological appearance can vary broadly, and MCL may in some instances be difficult to distinguish from other lymphomas such as follicular lymphoma (FL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and variant forms of CLL. Distinguishing MCL from CLL presents a common diagnostic dilemma because they can sometimes overlap both morphologically and immunophenotypically. The typical MCL immunophenotype is CD20 positive, CD5 positive, and CD23 negative, whereas CLL is usually positive for the latter.² However, MCL shows an aberrant phenotype in approximately 7% of cases.⁷ While morphology and immunophenotyping are often sufficient, additional studies are sometimes necessary to make a definitive diagnosis.

The CCND1 protein (also known as BCL1 or PRAD1) can by detected by immunohistochemical (IHC) methods in approximately 70% of cases,⁸ although the staining and interpretation can be difficult, especially in bone marrow preparations.

By standard cytogenetic analysis, the t(11;14) is reported to be detectable in only 60 to 80% of cases for technical reasons.⁹ When routinely available for clinical use, it is virtually always detectable by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).⁹ PCR for t(11;14) has complications because the breakpoints occur across 120 kb, although approximately 50% occur within a span called the major translocation cluster (MTC). Consequently, the PCR detection rate for t(11;14) is approximately 40 to 60%.² Southern blot methods can detect 70 to 80% if multiple probes are used.⁹ However, this method requires large amounts of sample and is technically laborious and challenging in a clinical setting. Similarly, the labor-intensive and technically difficult Northern blot assays for CCND1 mRNA are not suitable for clinical use.

An approach used by others has been to assay for CCND1 mRNA by reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), since normal B cells express very low levels of CCND1.¹⁰ Again, there are caveats. Increased CCND1 levels have been reported in a minority of cases of other B-NHLs, CLLs, MMs, acute myeloid leukemias (AML), and hairy cell leukemias (HCL), sometimes in the absence of t(11;14).^{11, 12, 13} Furthermore, epithelial cells inherently express high levels of CCND1.¹⁴ Such cells may be found in significant numbers in extranodal sites being evaluated for NHL.

It is not surprising, therefore, that non-quantitative RT-PCR methods do not adequately distinguish MCL from other B-cell lymphoproliferations.¹⁵ Semi-quantitative methods and real-time quantitative methods have shown improvement in specificity. Bijwaard¹⁶ and Suzuki¹² each describe a real-time quantitative method, with normalization of the results to a housekeeping gene. These appear to separate the MCLs in most cases, however neither evaluated any CLL cases. Nor do they resolve the issue of discerning MCL in a specimen containing an epithelial component, although Bijwaard¹⁶ does mention this caveat. Specht⁴ and Thomazy⁹ resolve the latter using microdissection of the specimen before RT-PCR.

We postulated that a simpler approach would be to quantitate the ratio of CCND1 to cyclin D3 (CCND3). There are previous reports by others that support this approach. Ott et al¹⁷ used immunohistochemistry to demonstrate that while CCND1 was overexpressed in MCL, it was accompanied by reduced or absent CCND3 expression. Suzuki et al¹⁸ demonstrated by Northern blotting that in lymphoid malignancies showing an overexpression of CCND1 or cyclin D2 (CCND2), the CCND3 expression was reduced. Furthermore, Uchimura et al¹⁹ used a semi-quantitative assay for cyclins D1, D2, and D3, where they showed that a strong CCND1 signal with a weaker CCND3 signal is highly specific for the t(11;14)malignancies. Therefore, we adapted Uchimura’s¹⁹ assay as a real-time quantitative RT-PCR assay. We measured CCND1, CCND3, and a housekeeping gene (glyceraldehyde dehydrogenase phosphate or GADPH) on all specimens. The CCND1 and CCND3 are each normalized to GADPH, and the results are reported as a ratio of CCND1 to CCND3.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Patients and Samples
Quantitative analyses were performed on 107 clinical samples. The specimen types were archived frozen tissue, peripheral blood, and bone marrow aspirates. The diagnostic groups are shown in Table 1 . Thirty-two anonymized specimens of blood from patients not known to harbor any hematological or lymphoproliferative disorders comprised the normal group. For lymphoma samples, the diagnosis was confirmed by blinded evaluation. The diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma was made by using the morphological and immunophenotypic criteria of the World Health Organization classification.^{20, 21}

The reverse transcription reaction contained the following in a 40 µl volume: 400 units MMLV enzyme, 10 mmol/L dithiothreitol (DTT), 1X MMLV buffer (all from Invitrogen), 80 units RNasin (Promega, Madison, WI), 0.5 µg random hexamers (Amersham Biosciences), 0.5 mmol/L dNTPs (Amersham Biosciences) and DNase-treated total RNA. The minimum absolute RNA quantity used for the reverse transcription was one microgram, and the maximum was 10 micrograms. The reaction incubated at 25°C for 10 minutes, 37°C for 2 hours, and 70°C for 15 minutes. Control and reference RNA’s were reverse-transcribed alongside patient RNA for each run.

The quantitative real-time PCR was performed in the ABI 7700 with cycling as follows: an initial cycle for 10 minutes at 95°C, followed by 45 bi-phasic cycles of 15 seconds at 95°C and 1 minute at 60°C.

Each 96-well plate was divided into thirds, one for each target (CCND1, CCND3, and GADPH). Each third (32 wells) included the following: positive control, negative control, reference (or calibrator), no template control (water in lieu of cDNA template) and patient samples (all run in duplicate) as well as also no-RT controls for each patient sample run singly. The no-RT control is DNase-treated sample RNA that has not undergone the reverse transcription step. There was sufficient space for eight patient samples on each plate.

The CCND1 and CCND3 primers are as per Uchimura,¹⁹ and the probes for each were designed using Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The GADPH primers and probe were adapted from sequences used in the TaqMan GADPH Control Reagents Kit (Applied Biosystems), however we used FAM as the reporting fluorophore, rather than VIC. Primers and probes were manufactured by Operon Technologies (Alameda, CA). Note that the CCND1 and CCND3 reactions use the same forward primer (for homologous CCND regions), while the reverse primer and the probe is specific for either the D1 or D3 types. Each probe includes FAM (6-carboxy-fluorescein. emission 518 nm) at the 5'-end as the reporter and TAMRA (6-carboxy-tetramethyl-rhodamine, emission 582 nm) at the 3'-end as the quencher. Primer and probe sequences are listed in Table 2 .

The reaction mixture for CCND3 contains the following in a final volume of 25 µl: 2.5U TaqGold, 1X TaqGold Buffer II, and 11 mmol/L MgCl₂ (all from Applied Biosystems), 200 µmol/L dNTPs (Amersham Biosciences), 10 pmoles each of CCND-F primer, CCND3-R primer, and CCND3 probe, and 3 µl of cDNA.

The reaction mixture for GADPH contains the following in a final volume of 25 µl: 2.5U TaqGold, 1X TaqGold Buffer II, and 11 mmol/L MgCl₂ (all from Applied Biosystems), 250 µmol/L dNTPs (Amersham Biosciences), 50 pmoles each of GADPH-F primer and GADPH-R primer, 40 pmoles of GADPH probe, and 3 µl of cDNA.

Data Analysis
Results were calculated by the "Comparative Ct Method of Quantitation" (DCt) as per Applied Biosystems 7700 Sequence Detection System User Bulletin No. 2 (ABI Document No. 4303859, can be downloaded from the web as a pdf from: www.wzw.tum.de/gene-quantification/pe-rel-quan.pdf). In this method no standard curve is used, instead all results are calculated relative to a reference standard, called a "calibrator." Each of the three targets is analyzed separately, then CCND1 and CCND3 are each normalized to GADPH. The normalization is necessary to account for variabilities in RNA quantity and quality, and variabilities in reverse transcription efficiency among samples. In this study we required that the GADPH Ct be less than 30 to be considered an interpretable specimen. In our experience using GADPH in real time assays, higher Cts for the GADPH indicate insufficient template quantity, quality, and/or the presence of inhibitors. Only one sample (GADPH Ct of 36) was excluded because it failed to meet this criterion.

The Ct is then calculated separately for CCND1 and CCND3 for each sample, using the cell line Meg01 as the calibrator. Meg01 (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) was chosen as the reference calibrator material because it appears to express approximately equivalent amounts of CCND1 and CCND3¹⁹ and, as a cell line, it is potentially a consistent and renewable source of calibrator template. We monitored the stability of the Meg01 cell line throughout this study, as described in the Results section below.

The Ct for CCND1 and the Ct for CCND3 are then reported as a simple ratio (Ct CCND1 value divided by the Ct CCND3 value). The relative PCR amplification efficiencies for GADPH, CCND1, and CCND3 were empirically evaluated, also as per User Bulletin No. 2 and were determined to meet the manufacturer’s criteria for equivalency.

Sensitivity
To assess the sensitivity of the assay, we performed the quantitative RT-PCR described above on a series of cell line dilutions. Cell suspensions of a t(11;14)-positive myeloma cell line (TIB-196, American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) and a t(11;14)-negative cell line (OCI-Ly8, Stanford, CA) were prepared such that each contained 5 x 10⁵ cells per microliter. The undiluted TIB-196 cell line was designated as 100%. The subsequent dilutions were named 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.25%, which represented the percentage of TIB-196 cells in each, using the negative OCI-Ly8 cells as the diluent. After the cells were properly diluted, RNA was extracted as described above. The RNA was then Dnase treated, and reverse transcription and quantitative real-time PCR were performed as described above.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The a CCND1/CCND3 (D1/D3) assay results for the 107 specimens in this study are tabulated in Table 3 and displayed graphically in Figure 1 . Sixteen of 17 MCL cases (94.1%) were positive by this method, defined as a D1/D3 ratio of 2 (2.0). The cut-off value of 2.0 was determined by analyzing which value yielded the best specificity results.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. CCND1/CCND3 results summary. Mean values are shown at the hash marks alongside the data points. Abbreviations: N, normal; Abn, hematolymphoid disorders other than MCL or CLL (see Table 1 for case composition of this group); Epi, non-malignant tissues containing a significant epithelial component (see Table 1 for case composition of this group); CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma.

View larger version (140K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Immunoperoxidase stain for BCL1 in lymph node tissue at x400 magnification. A: MCL case showing a typical nuclear staining pattern. B: The single MCL case with a negative D1/D3 ratio (0.030), showing an atypical staining pattern with only scattered CCND1 positivity.

Assays of cell-line dilutions showed a sensitivity of 10%, the lowest dilution of MCL cells in non-MCL lymphocytes that gave a D1/D3 ratio of greater than 2.0. In other words, a tumor infiltrate comprising at least 10% of the cells analyzed is required to detect an abnormal result.

The Meg01 cell line showed stable relative expression of CCND1 and CCND3 over the three passages required to complete this study (a total of 24 test plates). For all test plates, the Meg01 mean Ct _D1-D3 was 8.70, with a coefficient of variance of 10.0%. This was evenly spread throughout the runs, with no shifts when changing lots of Meg01.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We have developed a real-time quantitative PCR using the 5' exonuclease method of fluorescence detection on the ABI 7700 Sequence Detector System. We adapted the semi-quantitative method of Uchimura et al¹⁹ to measure the expression of CCND1 and CCND3, both normalized to the housekeeping gene GADPH. We assayed a total of 107 specimens for this D1/D3 ratio, which included 17 MCL cases. By our D1/D3 ratio method, we were able to correctly identify 16 of 17 MCLs, with no false positives in other tissues or hematolymphoid malignancies.

The single aberrantly low D1/D3 result in MCL was an axillary lymph node. Rosenwald et al²² reported gene expression microarray data that showed nine cases of MCL without increased CCND1 expression, and some of these showed increased CCND2 or CCND3 expression. Indeed, the Ct value for CCND3 in this case is 113.4, while the other MCL cases are very low in comparison, ranging from 0.51 to 9.09.

An important issue in CCND1 assay development is specificity. Of particular concern to us was the ability of the D1/D3 ratio method to distinguish MCL from CLL. At our institution, it is common to make a diagnosis of CLL from peripheral blood and/or bone marrow, and in some cases it is difficult to definitively rule out MCL. We performed the D1/D3 assay on 10 cases of CLL and this method was 100% specific at ruling out a diagnosis of MCL, with no false positives among the CLL cases.

Another concern was whether or not contaminating epithelial cells might falsely elevate the D1/D3 ratio. Epithelia are known to express high levels of CCND1¹⁴ and extra-nodal presentations are not uncommon in MCL.² Indeed, in CCND1 expression studies that included extra-nodal specimens, elevated CCND1 were sometimes seen in non-MCL NHL cases. These reports warn of potential false positive results in CCND1 expression levels in such cases.¹⁷

CCND3 levels in epithelia have not been reported to our knowledge. However, CCND3 is nearly ubiquitously expressed, along with either CCND1 or CCND2 in a given tissue type.^{19, 23} Therefore, we postulated that perhaps the ratio of CCND1/CCND3 might more reliably diagnose a MCL in tissues containing epithelia. To investigate this, we tested 7 non-malignant tissues containing a significant epithelial component that would be potential extranodal sites for MCL. The sites were thymus (2), lung (1), intestine (1), stomach (1), submaxillary tissue (1), and parotid (1). These tissues showed a broad range of epithelial tissue, ranging from 10% in the thymus specimens to >90% in the submaxillary specimen. Interestingly, an evaluation of the parotid specimen by CCND1 alone, without including CCND3, would give an apparent (false) positive result. This specimen contained 50% epithelial tissue. However, all of the epithelial specimens, including the parotid, were negative by CCND1/CCND3 ratio.

Table 5 shows the results for these specimens. All specimens yielded negative CCND1/CCND3 ratios (less than 2.0). Therefore, it appears that by this methodology, the presence of epithelial cells will not lead to false positive diagnoses of MCL in extra-nodal presentations.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Comparison of the specificity of the CCND1/CCND3 ratio (A) with CCND1 expression alone (B). All results are normalized to GADPH. N, normal; Abn, hematolymphoid disrders other than MCL or CLL (see Table 1 for case composition of this group); Epi, non-malignant tissues containing a significant epithelial component (see Table 1 for case composition of this group); CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma.

We did not perform testing on paraffin-embedded tissue in this study, because the described primer set yields amplicons of approximately 250 bp. In our experience, this amplicon size is larger than can routinely be obtained by isolating RNA from paraffin-embedded specimens. However, our approach of measuring a CCND1/CCND3 ratio could be tested by designing a primer set that yields smaller amplicons.

In conclusion, we describe a real-time quantitative PCR for cyclin D1 expression, reported as a ratio to cyclin D3. Our CCND1/CCND3 method reliably distinguishes MCL from other malignant and non-malignant samples. The CCND1/CCND3 ratio improves the specificity over an evaluation of CCND1 expression alone in the cases tested here. We conclude that the CCND1/CCND3 ratio offers a sensitive and specific test to aid in the diagnosis of MCL.

	Footnotes

 
Address reprint requests to James L. Zehnder, M.D., Stanford University, Department of Pathology, 300 Pasteur Drive, Mail Code 5324, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: zehnder{at}stanford.edu

Supported by National Institutes of Health grants 2PO1CA49605 and 2PO1CA34233.

Accepted for publication December 19, 2003.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Shaffer AL, Rosenwald A, Staudt LM: Lymphoid malignancies: the dark side of B-cell differentiation. Nat Rev Immunol 2002, 2:920-932[Medline]
2. Weisenburger DD, Armitage JO: Mantle cell lymphoma: an entity comes of age. Blood 1996, 87:4483-4494[Free Full Text]
3. Jadayel D, Matutes E, Dyer MJ, Brito-Babapulle V, Khohkar MT, Oscier D, Catovsky D: Splenic lymphoma with villous lymphocytes: analysis of BCL-1 rearrangements and expression of the cyclin D1 gene. Blood 1994, 83:3664-3671[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Specht K, Kremer M, Muller U, Dirnhofer S, Rosemann M, Hofler H, Quintanilla-Martinez L, Fend F: Identification of cyclin D1 mRNA overexpression in B-cell neoplasias by real-time reverse transcription-PCR of microdissected paraffin sections. Clin Cancer Res 2002, 8:2902-2911[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Lukas J, Jadayel D, Bartkova J, Nacheva E, Dyer MJ, Strauss M, Bartek J: BCL-1/cyclin D1 oncoprotein oscillates and subverts the G1 phase control in B-cell neoplasms carrying the t(11;14) translocation. Oncogene 1994, 9:2159-2167[Medline]
6. Pines J: Mammalian cell cycle control Peters G Vousden KH eds. Oncogenes and Tumour Suppressors 1997:pp 191-200 Oxford University Press New York
7. Argatoff LH, Connors JM, Klasa RJ, Horsman DE, Gascoyne RD: Mantle cell lymphoma: a clinicopathologic study of 80 cases. Blood 1997, 89:2067-2078[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Yatabe Y, Suzuki R, Tobinai K, Matsuno Y, Ichinohasama R, Okamoto M, Yamaguchi M, Tamaru J, Uike N, Hashimoto Y, Morishima Y, Suchi T, Seto M, Nakamura S: Significance of cyclin D1 overexpression for the diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma: a clinicopathologic comparison of cyclin D1-positive MCL and cyclin D1-negative MCL-like B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2000, 95:2253-2261[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Thomazy VA, Luthra R, Uthman MO, Davies PJ, Medeiros LJ: Determination of cyclin D1 and CD20 mRNA levels by real-time quantitative RT-PCR from archival tissue sections of mantle cell ymphoma and other non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Mol Diagn 2002, 4:201-208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Bosch F, Jares P, Campo E, Lopez-Guillermo A, Piris MA, Villamor N, Tassies D, Jaffe ES, Montserrat E, Rozman C: PRAD-1/cyclin D1 gene overexpression in chronic lymphoproliferative disorders: a highly specific marker of mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 1994, 84:2726-2732[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Campo E: Genetic and molecular genetic studies in the diagnosis of B-cell lymphomas I: mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and Burkitt’s lymphoma. Hum Pathol 2003, 34:330-335[Medline]
12. Suzuki R, Takemura K, Tsutsumi M, Nakamura S, Hamajima N, Seto M: Detection of cyclin D1 overexpression by real-time reverse-transcriptase-mediated quantitative polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma. Am J Pathol 2001, 159:425-429[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Bosch F, Campo E, Jares P, Pittaluga S, Munoz J, Nayach I, Piris MA, Dewolf-Peeters C, Jaffe ES, Rozman C, Montserrat E, Cardesa A: Increased expression of the PRAD-1/CCND1 gene in hairy cell leukaemia. Br J Haematol 1995, 91:1025-1030[Medline]
14. Bartkova J, Lukas J, Strauss M, Bartek J: Cell cycle-related variation and tissue-restricted expression of human cyclin D1 protein. J Pathol 1994, 172:237-245[Medline]
15. Aguilera NS, Bijwaard KE, Duncan B, Krafft AE, Chu WS, Abbondanzo SL, Lichy JH, Taubenberger JK: Differential expression of cyclin D1 in mantle cell lymphoma and other non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Am J Pathol 1998, 153:1969-1976[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Bijwaard KE, Aguilera NS, Monczak Y, Trudel M, Taubenberger JK, Lichy JH: Quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay for cyclin D1 expression: utility in the diagnosis of mantle cell lymphoma. Clin Chem 2001, 47:195-201[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Ott MM, Bartkova J, Bartek J, Durr A, Fischer L, Ott G, Muller-Hermelink HK, Kreipe H: Cyclin D1 expression in mantle cell lymphoma is accompanied by down-regulation of cyclin D3 and is not related to the proliferative activity. Blood 1997, 90:3154-3159[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Suzuki R, Kuroda H, Komatsu H, Hosokawa Y, Kagami Y, Ogura M, Nakamura S, Kodera Y, Morishima Y, Ueda R, Seto M: Selective usage of D-type cyclins in lymphoid malignancies. Leukemia 1999, 13:1335-1342[Medline]
19. Uchimaru K, Taniguchi T, Yoshikawa M, Asano S, Arnold A, Fujita T, Motokura T: Detection of cyclin D1 (bcl-1, PRAD1) overexpression by a simple competitive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay in t(11;14)(q13;q32)-bearing B-cell malignancies and/or mantle cell lymphoma. Blood 1997, 89:965-974[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, Banks PM, Chan JK, Cleary ML, Delsol G, De Wolf-Peeters C, Falini B, Gatter KC, Grogan TM, Isaacson PG, Knowles DM, Mason DY, Muller-Hermelink H-K, Pileri SA, Piris MA, Ralfkiaer E, Warnke RA: A revised European-American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood 1994, 84:1361-1392[Free Full Text]
21. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, Flandrin G, Muller-Hermelink HK, Vardiman J, Lister TA, Bloomfield CD: The World Health Organization classification of neoplastic diseases of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues: report of the Clinical Advisory Committee meeting, Airlie House, VA, November, 1997. Ann Oncol 1999, 10:1419-1432[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Rosenwald A, Wright G, Wiestner A, Chan WC, Connors JM, Campo E, Gascoyne RD, Grogan TM, Muller-Hermelink HK, Smeland EB, Chiorazzi M, Giltnane JM, Hurt EM, Zhao H, Averett L, Henrickson S, Yang L, Powell J, Wilson WH, Jaffe ES, Simon R, Klausner RD, Montserrat E, Bosch F, Greiner TC, Weisenburger DD, Sanger WG, Dave BJ, Lynch JC, Vose J, Armitage JO, Fisher RI, Miller TP, LeBlanc M, Ott G, Kvaloy S, Holte H, Delabie J, Staudt LM: The proliferation gene expression signature is a quantitative integrator of oncogenic events that predicts survival in mantle cell lymphoma. Cancer Cell 2003, 3:185-197[Medline]
23. Bartkova J, Lukas J, Strauss M, Bartek J: Cyclin D3: requirement for G1/S transition and high abundance in quiescent tissues suggest a dual role in proliferation and differentiation. Oncogene 1998, 17:1027-1037[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Gelebart, M. Anand, H. Armanious, A. C. Peters, J. Dien Bard, H. M. Amin, and R. Lai Constitutive activation of the Wnt canonical pathway in mantle cell lymphoma Blood, December 15, 2008; 112(13): 5171 - 5179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Shi, J. Guo, D. J. Duff, F. Rahmatpanah, R. Chitima-Matsiga, M. Al-Kuhlani, K. H. Taylor, O. Sjahputera, M. Andreski, J. E. Wooldridge, et al. Discovery of novel epigenetic markers in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Carcinogenesis, January 1, 2007; 28(1): 60 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jones, C. D. Articles by Zehnder, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, C. D. Articles by Zehnder, J. L.