Back

A Comparative Analaysis Of Inter-Site Gene Expression Heterogenicity Of Normal Human Buccal Mucosa With Normal Gingival Mucosa

Thavarajah, R.; Ranganathan, K.

2021-10-09 genomics
10.1101/2021.10.08.463654 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDDescription of heterogeneity of gene expression of various human intraoral sites are not adequate. The aim of this study was to explore the difference of gene expression profiles of whole tissue obtained from apparently normal human gingiva and buccal mucosa (HGM, HBM). MATERIALS AND METHODSGene sets fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria of HGM and HBM in gene Expression Omnibus(GEO) database were identified, segregated, filtered and analysed using the ExAtlas online web tool using pre-determined cut-off. The differentially expressed genes were studied for epithelial keratinization related, housekeeping(HKG), extracellular matrix related(ECMRG) and epithelial-mesenchymal transition related genes(EMTRGs). RESULTSIn all 40 HBM and 64 HGM formed the study group. In all there were 18012 significantly expressed genes. Of this, 1814 were over-expressed and 1862 under-expressed HBM genes as compared to HGM. One in five of all studied genes significantly differed between HBM and HGM. For the keratinization genes, 1 in 6 differed. One of every 5 HKG-proteomics genes differed between HBM and HGM, while this ratio was 1-in 4 for all ECMRGs and EMTRGs. DISCUSSIONThis difference in the gene expression between the HBM and HGM could possibly influence a multitude of biological pathways. This result could explain partly the difference in clinicopathological features of oral lesions occurring in HBM and HGM. The innate genotypic difference between the two intra-oral niches could serve as confounding factor in genotypic studies. Hence studies that compare the HBM and HGM should factor-in these findings while evaluating their results.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.