Bee Ling Ng1, Nigel P Carter. 1. The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK. bln@sanger.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the major factors which influences the chromosome purity achievable particularly during high speed sorting is the analytical resolution of individual chromosome peaks in the flow karyotype, as well as the amount of debris and fragmented chromosomes. We have investigated the factors involved in the preparation of chromosome suspensions that influence karyotype resolution. METHODS: Chromosomes were isolated from various human and animal cell types using a series of polyamine buffer isolation protocols modified with respect to pH, salt concentration, and chromosome staining time. Each preparation was analyzed on a MoFlo sorter (DAKO) configured for high speed sorting and the resolution of the flow karyotypes compared. RESULTS: High resolution flow cytometric data was obtained with chromosomes optimally isolated using hypotonic solution buffered at pH 8.0 and polyamine isolation buffer (with NaCl excluded) between pH 7.50 and 8.0. Extending staining time to more than 8 h with chromosome suspensions isolated from cell lines subjected to sufficient metaphase arrest times gave the best result with the lowest percentage of debris generated, tighter chromosome peaks with overall lower coefficients of variation, and a 1- to 5-fold increase in the yield of isolated chromosomes. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of buffer pH and the length of staining improved karyotype resolution particularly for larger chromosomes and reduced the presence of chromosome fragments (debris). However, the most interesting and surprising finding was that the exclusion of NaCl in PAB buffer improved the yield and resolution of larger chromosomes. (c) 2006 International Society for Analytical Cytology.
BACKGROUND: One of the major factors which influences the chromosome purity achievable particularly during high speed sorting is the analytical resolution of individual chromosome peaks in the flow karyotype, as well as the amount of debris and fragmented chromosomes. We have investigated the factors involved in the preparation of chromosome suspensions that influence karyotype resolution. METHODS: Chromosomes were isolated from various human and animal cell types using a series of polyamine buffer isolation protocols modified with respect to pH, salt concentration, and chromosome staining time. Each preparation was analyzed on a MoFlo sorter (DAKO) configured for high speed sorting and the resolution of the flow karyotypes compared. RESULTS: High resolution flow cytometric data was obtained with chromosomes optimally isolated using hypotonic solution buffered at pH 8.0 and polyamine isolation buffer (with NaCl excluded) between pH 7.50 and 8.0. Extending staining time to more than 8 h with chromosome suspensions isolated from cell lines subjected to sufficient metaphase arrest times gave the best result with the lowest percentage of debris generated, tighter chromosome peaks with overall lower coefficients of variation, and a 1- to 5-fold increase in the yield of isolated chromosomes. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of buffer pH and the length of staining improved karyotype resolution particularly for larger chromosomes and reduced the presence of chromosome fragments (debris). However, the most interesting and surprising finding was that the exclusion of NaCl in PAB buffer improved the yield and resolution of larger chromosomes. (c) 2006 International Society for Analytical Cytology.
Authors: Wenhui Nie; Patricia C M O'Brien; Bee L Ng; Beiyuan Fu; Vitaly Volobouev; Nigel P Carter; Malcolm A Ferguson-Smith; Fengtang Yang Journal: Chromosome Res Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 5.239
Authors: Beth L Dumont; Christina L Williams; Bee Ling Ng; Valerie Horncastle; Carol L Chambers; Lisa A McGraw; David Adams; Trudy F C Mackay; Matthew Breen Journal: Genetics Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: Jaroslav Doležel; Jan Vrána; Jan Safář; Jan Bartoš; Marie Kubaláková; Hana Simková Journal: Funct Integr Genomics Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 3.410
Authors: Yali Xue; Qiuju Wang; Quan Long; Bee Ling Ng; Harold Swerdlow; John Burton; Carl Skuce; Ruth Taylor; Zahra Abdellah; Yali Zhao; Daniel G MacArthur; Michael A Quail; Nigel P Carter; Huanming Yang; Chris Tyler-Smith Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Ian Sudbery; Jim Stalker; Jared T Simpson; Thomas Keane; Alistair G Rust; Matthew E Hurles; Klaudia Walter; Dee Lynch; Lydia Teboul; Steve D Brown; Heng Li; Zemin Ning; Joseph H Nadeau; Colleen M Croniger; Richard Durbin; David J Adams Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Susan M Gribble; Frances K Wiseman; Stephen Clayton; Elena Prigmore; Elizabeth Langley; Fengtang Yang; Sean Maguire; Beiyuan Fu; Diana Rajan; Olivia Sheppard; Carol Scott; Heidi Hauser; Philip J Stephens; Lucy A Stebbings; Bee Ling Ng; Tomas Fitzgerald; Michael A Quail; Ruby Banerjee; Kai Rothkamm; Victor L J Tybulewicz; Elizabeth M C Fisher; Nigel P Carter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: K D Howarth; K A Blood; B L Ng; J C Beavis; Y Chua; S L Cooke; S Raby; K Ichimura; V P Collins; N P Carter; P A W Edwards Journal: Oncogene Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 9.867