| Literature DB >> 16641909 |
K Unger1, L Zurnadzhy, A Walch, M Mall, T Bogdanova, H Braselmann, L Hieber, N Tronko, P Hutzler, S Jeremiah, G Thomas, H Zitzelsberger.
Abstract
Tissue samples from 13 post-Chernobyl childhood thyroid tumours that occurred within a short period of time (4-8 years) after the Chernobyl accident have been investigated by interphase FISH analysis for rearrangements of RET. In all, 77% of cases showed RET/PTC rearrangements and a distinct intratumoural genetic heterogeneity. The data were compared to findings on 32 post-Chernobyl PTCs that occurred after a longer period of time (9-12 years) after the accident. In none of the cases from either group were 100% of cells positive for RET rearrangement. In addition, the pattern of RET-positive cells was different in the two groups (short vs longer latency). A significant clustering of aberrant cells could be detected in the long-latency subgroup, whereas the aberrant cells were more homogeneously distributed among the short-latency tumours. The findings suggest that oligoclonal tumour development occurs in post-Chernobyl PTCs. This pattern of different clones within the tumour appears to become more discrete in cases with longer latencies, suggesting either outgrowth of individual clones or development of later subclones with time.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16641909 PMCID: PMC2365029 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Information on 13 patients on age at diagnosis, exposure and the latent period
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 6.41 | 13.69 | 7.34 |
| Median | 6.84 | 14.09 | 7.61 |
| Range | 4.16–7.95 | 12.27–16.00 | 5.67–8.21 |
FISH analysis of RET rearrangements in 14 post-Chernobyl PTCs with a short latency
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I | 6.58/F | Follicular/solid | 13 | 87 | — | >95 |
| II | 8.21/F | Papillary | 55 | 45 | — | >95 |
| III | 8.06/F | Papillary | 6 | 94 | — | >95 |
| IV | 5.67/F | Papillary | 23 | 77 | — | >95 |
| V | 8.18/F | Papillary/follicular | 15 | 85 | — | >95 |
| VI | 8.12/F | Papillary | 6 | 94 | — | >95 |
| VII | 7.61/F | Solid | 13 | 87 | Yes | >95 |
| VIII | 7.10/F | Solid | 11 | 89 | — | >95 |
| IX | 7.62/M | Solid | 24 | 76 | — | >95 |
| X | 8.0/F | Solid | 14 | 86 | — | >95 |
| XI | 6.85/F | Solid | 29 | 71 | — | >95 |
| XII | 6.72/M | Follicular | 11 | 89 | — | >95 |
| XIII | 6.71/F | Follicular | 4 | 96 | — | >95 |
Years/F=female; FISH=fluorescent in situ hybridisation; M=male.
Binominal homogeneity test to calculate a dispersion factor. P<0.05 indicates a nonhomogeneous distribution of aberrant cells between all viewing areas scored.
The percentage of tumour cells was evaluated from microdissected tissue sections after FISH analysis and after staining with haematoxylin (see also Figure 1).
Sporadic entrapped non-neoplastic follicles were present (<1–2%).
Figure 2FISH analysis with RET-specific DNA probes on paraffin sections using confocal LSM. (A) Hybridised section of case III stained simultaneously with hematoxylin to evaluate histologic features of the FISH-scored area. A papillary structure consisting of epithelial tumour cells in the vast majority. Examples of FISH-scored areas containing RET/PTC-rearranged and nonrearranged tumour cells are indicated. (B) Examples from two different tumour areas of the same case are demonstrated. One viewing area shows split FISH signals (arrows, left), and another viewing area shows only normal cells exhibiting overlapping FISH signals. All images are superimposed from approximately 10 different slices throughout the thickness of the tissue section.
Figure 1Scatter plot showing the dispersion parameter for RET/PTC-rearranged cells within tumours against latency for each tumour patient. Filled circles represent significantly elevated dispersion factors indicating cases with a nonhomogeneous distribution of RET/PTC-rearranged cells within tumours. It is clearly visible from these diagrams that RET/PTC clustering occurs only in tumours with a latency of >8 years after the accident. These results are the basis for the discrimination in cases of short (4–8 years) and long (9–12 years) latency.
Figure 3Frequency of RET/PTC-positive cells detected by interphase FISH analysis in post-Chernobyl papillary carcinomas of short (upper graph) and long (lower graph; Unger ) latency. Histological subtypes are classified in different colours. Cases exhibiting a statistically significant clustering of RET/PTC-positive cells are indicated by asterisks.
Figure 4Analysis of RET/PTC rearrangements on control cell lines. (A) interphase FISH with YAC DNA probes on TPC-1 (left), SHSY (middle) and NPA (right) cell lines. All interphase cell nuclei of TPC-1 exhibit a split FISH signal and an overlapping FISH signal suggesting RET/PTC rearrangement, whereas exclusively overlapping FISH signals are visible in SHSY and NPA cells (B) RT–PCR for RET/PTC1 (left), TK domain (middle) and extracellular domain (right). RET/PTC1 rearrangement is only detectable in TPC-1 cells, whereas expression of the RET TK domain is observed in both TPC-1 and SHSY cells. Extracellular domain expression is only observed in SHSY cells, which express the full-length c-RET transcript. TPC-1 is positive for RET/PTC1 (positive control), SHSY shows expression of full-length RET without rearrangement (negative control) and the triploid NPA cell line exhibits neither RET expression nor RET rearrangement by FISH (negative control).