B Carvalho1, E Ouwerkerk, G A Meijer, B Ylstra. 1. Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, de Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, comparative genomic hybridisation array (array CGH) is the method of choice for studying genome wide DNA copy number changes. To date, either amplified representations of bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs)/phage artificial chromosomes (PACs) or cDNAs have been spotted as probes. The production of BAC/PAC and cDNA arrays is time consuming and expensive. AIM: To evaluate the use of spotted 60 mer oligonucleotides (oligos) for array CGH. METHODS: The hybridisation of tumour cell lines with known chromosomal aberrations on to either BAC or oligoarrrays that are mapped to the human genome. RESULTS: Oligo CGH was able to detect amplifications with high accuracy and greater spatial resolution than other currently used array CGH platforms. In addition, single copy number changes could be detected with a resolution comparable to conventional CGH. CONCLUSIONS: Oligos are easy to handle and flexible, because they can be designed for any part of the genome without the need for laborious amplification procedures. The full genome array, containing around 30000 oligos of all genes in the human genome, will represent a big step forward in the analysis of chromosomal copy number changes. Finally, oligoarray CGH can easily be used for any organism with a fully sequenced genome.
BACKGROUND: Currently, comparative genomic hybridisation array (array CGH) is the method of choice for studying genome wide DNA copy number changes. To date, either amplified representations of bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs)/phage artificial chromosomes (PACs) or cDNAs have been spotted as probes. The production of BAC/PAC and cDNA arrays is time consuming and expensive. AIM: To evaluate the use of spotted 60 mer oligonucleotides (oligos) for array CGH. METHODS: The hybridisation of tumour cell lines with known chromosomal aberrations on to either BAC or oligoarrrays that are mapped to the human genome. RESULTS: Oligo CGH was able to detect amplifications with high accuracy and greater spatial resolution than other currently used array CGH platforms. In addition, single copy number changes could be detected with a resolution comparable to conventional CGH. CONCLUSIONS: Oligos are easy to handle and flexible, because they can be designed for any part of the genome without the need for laborious amplification procedures. The full genome array, containing around 30000 oligos of all genes in the human genome, will represent a big step forward in the analysis of chromosomal copy number changes. Finally, oligoarray CGH can easily be used for any organism with a fully sequenced genome.
Authors: J R Pollack; C M Perou; A A Alizadeh; M B Eisen; A Pergamenschikov; C F Williams; S S Jeffrey; D Botstein; P O Brown Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: A M Snijders; N Nowak; R Segraves; S Blackwood; N Brown; J Conroy; G Hamilton; A K Hindle; B Huey; K Kimura; S Law; K Myambo; J Palmer; B Ylstra; J P Yue; J W Gray; A N Jain; D Pinkel; D G Albertson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: D G Albertson; B Ylstra; R Segraves; C Collins; S H Dairkee; D Kowbel; W L Kuo; J W Gray; D Pinkel Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: G Hodgson; J H Hager; S Volik; S Hariono; M Wernick; D Moore; N Nowak; D G Albertson; D Pinkel; C Collins; D Hanahan; J W Gray Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jonathan R Pollack; Therese Sørlie; Charles M Perou; Christian A Rees; Stefanie S Jeffrey; Per E Lonning; Robert Tibshirani; David Botstein; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Patrick O Brown Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-09-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Marjan M Weiss; Ernst J Kuipers; Cindy Postma; Antoine M Snijders; Ivar Siccama; Daniel Pinkel; Johan Westerga; Stefan G M Meuwissen; Donna G Albertson; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-03-27 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Mónica Wilhelm; Joris A Veltman; Adam B Olshen; Ajay N Jain; Dan H Moore; Joe C Presti; Gyula Kovacs; Frederic M Waldman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Antoine M Snijders; Marlies E Nowee; Jane Fridlyand; Jurgen M J Piek; Josephine C Dorsman; Ajay N Jain; Daniel Pinkel; Paul J van Diest; René H M Verheijen; Donna G Albertson Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: L Coussens; T L Yang-Feng; Y C Liao; E Chen; A Gray; J McGrath; P H Seeburg; T A Libermann; J Schlessinger; U Francke Journal: Science Date: 1985-12-06 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Mandeep S Tamber; Krishan Bansal; Muh-Lii Liang; Todd G Mainprize; Bodour Salhia; Paul Northcott; Michael Taylor; James T Rutka Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2006-09-02 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Pawandeep Dhami; Alison J Coffey; Stephen Abbs; Joris R Vermeesch; Jan P Dumanski; Karen J Woodward; Robert M Andrews; Cordelia Langford; David Vetrie Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-03-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Ken C Lo; Ganesh Shankar; Yaron Turpaz; Dione Bailey; Michael R Rossi; Tania Burkhardt; Ping Liang; John K Cowell Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2007-08-08