Literature DB >> 11092976

Evaluation of the reliability of chromosomal imbalances detected by combined use of universal DNA amplification and comparative genomic hybridization.

T Harada1, K Shiraishi, N Kusano, K Umayahara, S Kondoh, K Okita, K Sasaki.   

Abstract

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis of microscopic tumor samples is allowed by universal DNA amplification using degenerate oligonucleotide primed-PCR (DOP-PCR). To evaluate the reliablity of DOP-PCR CGH, we performed DOP-PCR CGH and standard CGH in parallel using DNAs extracted from 10 malignant tumors of the hepatobiliary tract and pancreas. Similar results were obtained by both methods with a few exceptions, indicating that DOP-PCR CGH provides cytogenetic information equivalent to that obtained from standard CGH. We also investigated the sensitivity of DOP-PCR CGH using sequential dilutions of DNA from microdissected tumor cells. DOP-PCR using 100 to 800 pg of template DNA yielded successful CGH results. However, less than 50 pg of template DNA was not suitable because of the small amount of generated DNA. These findings suggest that DOP-PCR CGH is applicable for CGH analysis of tiny specimens which are too small for standard CGH. Accordingly, DOP-PCR CGH analysis may become a useful method in clinical laboratory examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11092976      PMCID: PMC5926293          DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2000.tb00894.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Jpn J Cancer Res        ISSN: 0910-5050


  21 in total

1.  Genetic alterations in primary breast cancers and their metastases: direct comparison using modified comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  T Nishizaki; S DeVries; K Chew; W H Goodson; B M Ljung; A Thor; F M Waldman
Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 5.006

2.  Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer.

Authors:  H Telenius; N P Carter; C E Bebb; M Nordenskjöld; B A Ponder; A Tunnacliffe
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.736

3.  A simple and efficient method for microdissection and microFISH.

Authors:  J J Engelen; J C Albrechts; G J Hamers; J P Geraedts
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.318

4.  Microdissection and polymerase chain reaction amplification of genomic DNA from histological tissue sections.

Authors:  C A Moskaluk; S E Kern
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.307

5.  Evidence of focal genetic microheterogeneity in glioblastoma multiforme by area-specific CGH on microdissected tumor cells.

Authors:  V Jung; B F Romeike; W Henn; W Feiden; J R Moringlane; K D Zang; S Urbschat
Journal:  J Neuropathol Exp Neurol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.685

6.  Whole genome amplification and molecular genetic analysis of DNA from paraffin-embedded prostate adenocarcinoma tumor tissue.

Authors:  S H Kim; T Godfrey; R H Jensen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Differentiation of multifocal renal cell carcinoma by comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  K Junker; W Hindermann; J Schubert; A Schlichter
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.480

8.  Cytogenetic analysis by chromosome painting using DOP-PCR amplified flow-sorted chromosomes.

Authors:  H Telenius; A H Pelmear; A Tunnacliffe; N P Carter; A Behmel; M A Ferguson-Smith; M Nordenskjöld; R Pfragner; B A Ponder
Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.006

9.  Genetic aberrations detected by comparative genomic hybridization predict outcome in node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  J J Isola; O P Kallioniemi; L W Chu; S A Fuqua; S G Hilsenbeck; C K Osborne; F M Waldman
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 10.  Optimizing comparative genomic hybridization for analysis of DNA sequence copy number changes in solid tumors.

Authors:  O P Kallioniemi; A Kallioniemi; J Piper; J Isola; F M Waldman; J W Gray; D Pinkel
Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 5.006

View more
  2 in total

1.  XPO1 Expression Is a Poor-Prognosis Marker in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  David Jérémie Birnbaum; Pascal Finetti; Daniel Birnbaum; Emilie Mamessier; François Bertucci
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 4.241

2.  Identification of frequent cytogenetic aberrations in hepatocellular carcinoma using gene-expression microarray data.

Authors:  Joseph J Crawley; Kyle A Furge
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2002-11-25       Impact factor: 13.583

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.