MML translocation and Phenotype related probes

Supplementary Table 2. (PAM related probes) Fourteen out of 15 probes extracted by PAM that matched SAM analyses results

SAM results from the analysis of 26 AML patients without MLL translocation. Class comparison analysis was performed between AML/MLL- patients with MEIS1-upregulated and MEIS1-downregulated (see hierarchical clustering results for PAM analyses  Figure 3)

Supplementary Table 1-activated growth factor signaling signature

Table 2b Twenty down-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 15h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name

Table 2a Twenty-four up-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 15h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name

Table 1a Twenty-six up-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 6h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name.

Table 1b Thirty-two down-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 6h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name

Table 3a Thirty-three up-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 24h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name

Table 3b Fifty-nine down-regulated probes in KMS11 upon 24h RPI-1-treatment  ordered by gene name

Supplemental Table S1. Comparison of Gene Expression Profiles in Parental  IM-R  and PD-R K562 Cells; 281 genes  corresponding to 1% of the total set of genes present on the biochip  were differentially expressed between parental and IM-R or PD-R

Table 1. Highly up-regulated and down-regulated genes in MCF10CA1a involved in breast cancer

Table 3. Selected up-regulated genes in MCF10CA1a coding for functionally relevant proteins

Table 2. Selected down-regulated genes in MCF10CA1a coding for functionally relevant proteins

Table 3. Effects of thalidomide  lenalidomide and pomalidomide on genes associated with treatment

Table 1. Top-ten genes altered by treatment with thalidomide  lenalidomide and pomalidomide in vitro

Table 2. Top-ten genes altered by treatment with thalidomide  lenalidomide and pomalidomide in vivo

Table S1. Genes differentially expressed in GFP+ CD133+ and GFP? CD133+ dermal cells compared with GFP? CD133? dermal cells

Table S2. Genes differentially expressed in GFP+ CD133+ dermal cells compared with GFP? CD133? and GFP? CD133+ dermal cells