Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar 9;12(3):e0173242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173242

Table 1. Promoter CGIs that distinguish CGI-H from CGI-L tumors as measured by MethylCap-seq.

Gene symbol Chromosomal location CpG Fold change
(hg19) count RPM
TMEM115 chr3:50402103–50402942 66 18.9
TBX18 chr6:85472702–85474132 129 18.9
NODAL chr10:72200065–72201368 106 16.9
SVEP1 chr9:113341213–113342029 99 16.2
TNFSF11 chr13:43148277–43149282 83 16
OR10H2 chr19:15833733–15833983 23 14.5
KDM2B chr12:122016170–122017693 125 14.4
FGF12 chr3:192125818–192127991 176 14
APCDD1L chr20:57089460–57090237 71 13.6
EPHX3 chr19:15344091–15344419 33 13
ASCL1 chr12:103351579–103352695 105 13
EXOC3L4 chr14:103557606–103558235 63 12.6
SMOC2 chr6:168841818–168843100 125 12.5
B4GALNT1 chr12:58025661–58027056 124 12.2
GRM8 chr7:126891300–126894205 234 12.1
VILL chr3:38035701–38036000 29 11.7

The 2269 promoter CGI were sorted by Kruskal-Wallis p-value and fold difference for the CGI-H vs. CGI-L comparison; potential candidates were excluded that overlapped regions associated with copy number amplification in TCGA endometrioid samples (8 of the top 50). In addition, a threshold Student p-value of p<0.01 (not corrected for multiple comparisons) was imposed to exclude candidates with large fold differences that appeared to be driven by outlier samples (5 of the top 21).