Literature DB >> 10862048

Improving degenerate oligonucleotide primed PCR-comparative genomic hybridization for analysis of DNA copy number changes in tumors.

Q Huang1, S P Schantz, P H Rao, J Mo, S A McCormick, R S Chaganti.   

Abstract

Combining degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR (DOP-PCR) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has made it possible to analyze genomic changes in single cells. Although DOP-PCR-CGH methodology has been reported, the reproducibility of the method has been uncertain. We have developed a reproducible DOP-PCR-CGH protocol by systematically evaluating different labeling methods (including nick translation, PCR incorporation, and random-primed labeling) and different hybridization mixtures (including amplified test DNA vs. amplified reference DNA, termed homo-hybridization; and amplified test DNA vs. unamplified reference DNA or vice versa, termed hetero-hybridization). We have analyzed DNA samples obtained from 16 tissue sources including fresh/frozen normal and tumor samples, formalin fixed and paraffin embedded tumor tissue, and tumor cell lines by using differently labeled probes and hybridization combinations, and we calculated the corresponding rate (CR) of DOP-PCR-CGH with standard CGH. We found that homo-hybridization produced reproducible results with high CRs as compared to standard CGH (91-100% CR, mean 97%); In contrast, hetero-hybridization failed to generate reproducible hybridization with low CRs (57-97% CR, mean 80%; chi(2) = 1245.8, P<0.0001), high background, uneven hybridization, and false deletions or amplifications. In addition, our improved DOP-PCR protocol raised the amplification efficiency at least five times as compared to previously reported protocols, allowing for the detection of genomic imbalances in as little as 12.5 pg of starting DNA. In conclusion, the DOP-PCR-CHG homo-hybridization method, especially when combined with labeling by nick translation, is reliable and reproducible. The method can be used in screening for genomic imbalances using minute amounts of tumor DNA, thereby facilitating CGH application. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 28:395-403, 2000. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10862048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer        ISSN: 1045-2257            Impact factor:   5.006


  14 in total

1.  Whole genome analysis of genetic alterations in small DNA samples using hyperbranched strand displacement amplification and array-CGH.

Authors:  José M Lage; John H Leamon; Tanja Pejovic; Stefan Hamann; Michelle Lacey; Deborah Dillon; Richard Segraves; Bettina Vossbrinck; Antonio González; Daniel Pinkel; Donna G Albertson; Jose Costa; Paul M Lizardi
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  SCOMP is superior to degenerated oligonucleotide primed-polymerase chain reaction for global amplification of minute amounts of DNA from microdissected archival tissue samples.

Authors:  Nikolas H Stoecklein; Andreas Erbersdobler; Oleg Schmidt-Kittler; Joachim Diebold; Julian A Schardt; Jakob R Izbicki; Christoph A Klein
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Detecting single DNA copy number variations in complex genomes using one nanogram of starting DNA and BAC-array CGH.

Authors:  Marine Guillaud-Bataille; Alexander Valent; Pascal Soularue; Christine Perot; Maria Mar Inda; Aline Receveur; Sadek Smaïli; Hugues Roest Crollius; Jean Bénard; Alain Bernheim; Xavier Gidrol; Gisèle Danglot
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 16.971

4.  Amplification of whole tumor genomes and gene-by-gene mapping of genomic aberrations from limited sources of fresh-frozen and paraffin-embedded DNA.

Authors:  Markus Bredel; Claudia Bredel; Dejan Juric; Young Kim; Hannes Vogel; Griffith R Harsh; Lawrence D Recht; Jonathan R Pollack; Branimir I Sikic
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.568

5.  Limited tissue fixation times and whole genomic amplification do not impact array CGH profiles.

Authors:  A A Ghazani; N C R Arneson; K Warren; S J Done
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Genome-wide appraisal of thyroid cancer progression.

Authors:  Volkert B Wreesmann; Ronald A Ghossein; Snehal G Patel; Charles P Harris; Erik A Schnaser; Ashok R Shaha; R Michael Tuttle; Jatin P Shah; Pulivarthi H Rao; Bhuvanesh Singh
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.307

7.  Comparative genomic hybridisation in malignant deciduoid mesothelioma.

Authors:  A Scattone; A Pennella; M Gentile; M Musti; P Nazzaro; A L Buonadonna; A Marzullo; D Cavone; L Pollice; G Serio
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  A second field metachronous Merkel cell carcinoma of the lip and the palatine tonsil confirmed by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation.

Authors:  Judit Nagy; Liliána Z Fehér; István Sonkodi; József Lesznyák; Béla Iványi; László G Puskás
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-02-25       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  Isolation and characterization of two novel colon cancer cell lines from Chinese patients.

Authors:  Dan-Ning Hu; Shiaw-Min Hwang; Xi-Zhang Lin; Pei-Yuh Yang; Chi-Hong Tsai; Qiang Huang; Hsin-Yi Huang; Min-Huo Hwang
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 2.416

10.  Genetic alterations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as revealed by degenerate oligonucleotide primed PCR-comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Ji-Young Lee; Young-Nyun Park; Kyung-Ok Uhm; Soo-Yeun Park; Sun-Hwa Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.