Literature DB >> 17170740

Evaluation of Phi29-based whole-genome amplification for microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation.

Edurne Arriola1, Maryou B K Lambros, Chris Jones, Tim Dexter, Alan Mackay, David S P Tan, Narinder Tamber, Kerry Fenwick, Alan Ashworth, Mitch Dowsett, Jorge S Reis-Filho.   

Abstract

For the optimal performance of high throughput genomic technologies sufficient yields of high-quality DNA are crucial. Following microdissection, most samples fail to produce sufficient quantities of DNA for genome-wide experiments. Various PCR-based amplification methods have been used, but these usually produce nonuniform representations of the genome. Bacteriophage Phi29 DNA polymerase random-primed DNA amplification is based on isothermal multiple displacement amplification. We sought to define the genome representation of this method in a bacterial artificial chromosome microarray comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) platform. Test genomic female DNA was amplified using Phi29 amplification at four different starting concentrations (0.5, 5, 10 and 50 ng). These products were combined with unamplified and amplified genomic female DNA as reference. In addition, 50 ng of DNA from five microdissected breast cancer frozen samples, were amplified using the same method. Three combinations were performed: unamplified test with unamplified reference, amplified test with unamplified reference and both amplified tumour and reference DNA. aCGH was performed with an in-house 16 K BAC platform (a resolution of approximately 100 Kb). Pearson's correlation tests and hierarchical clustering were performed to compare the profiles obtained. aCGH profiles obtained with amplified test and unamplified reference female genomic DNA showed copy number biases throughout the genome. These biases were more conspicuous with smaller amounts of starting material and mapped to regions of known copy number polymorphisms. When similar concentrations of test and reference DNA were amplified, the biases were significantly reduced, rendering accurate profiles. For the tumours, representative profiles were obtained when both test and reference DNA were amplified. Phi29 amplification induces copy number biases and unamplified material remains the gold standard for copy number analysis. For accurate results using Phi29 amplification, samples subjected to aCGH analysis should be combined with reference DNA amplified with the same method, using similar amounts of starting template.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17170740     DOI: 10.1038/labinvest.3700495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lab Invest        ISSN: 0023-6837            Impact factor:   5.662


  23 in total

Review 1.  A bioinformatician's guide to metagenomics.

Authors:  Victor Kunin; Alex Copeland; Alla Lapidus; Konstantinos Mavromatis; Philip Hugenholtz
Journal:  Microbiol Mol Biol Rev       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 11.056

2.  Analysis of DNA methylation of multiple genes in microdissected cells from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues.

Authors:  Dimo Dietrich; Ralf Lesche; Reimo Tetzner; Manuel Krispin; Jörn Dietrich; Wolfgang Haedicke; Matthias Schuster; Glen Kristiansen
Journal:  J Histochem Cytochem       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 2.479

3.  A procedure for highly specific, sensitive, and unbiased whole-genome amplification.

Authors:  Xinghua Pan; Alexander Eckehart Urban; Dean Palejev; Vincent Schulz; Fabian Grubert; Yiping Hu; Michael Snyder; Sherman M Weissman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Ultrafiltration and Microarray for Detection of Microbial Source Tracking Marker and Pathogen Genes in Riverine and Marine Systems.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Valerie J Harwood; Bina Nayak; Jennifer L Weidhaas
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Whole-genome amplification enables accurate genotyping for microarray-based high-density single nucleotide polymorphism array.

Authors:  Farzana Jasmine; Habibul Ahsan; Irene L Andrulis; Esther M John; Jenny Chang-Claude; Muhammad G Kibriya
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Characterization of whole genome amplified (WGA) DNA for use in genotyping assay development.

Authors:  Tao Han; Ching-Wei Chang; Joshua C Kwekel; Ying Chen; Yun Ge; Francisco Martinez-Murillo; Donna Roscoe; Zivana Težak; Reena Philip; Karen Bijwaard; James C Fuscoe
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Towards quantitative metagenomics of wild viruses and other ultra-low concentration DNA samples: a rigorous assessment and optimization of the linker amplification method.

Authors:  Melissa B Duhaime; Li Deng; Bonnie T Poulos; Matthew B Sullivan
Journal:  Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 5.491

8.  Integrated functional, gene expression and genomic analysis for the identification of cancer targets.

Authors:  Elizabeth Iorns; Christopher J Lord; Anita Grigoriadis; Sarah McDonald; Kerry Fenwick; Alan Mackay; Charles A Mein; Rachael Natrajan; Kay Savage; Narinder Tamber; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Nicholas C Turner; Alan Ashworth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Expression, mutation and copy number analysis of platelet-derived growth factor receptor A (PDGFRA) and its ligand PDGFA in gliomas.

Authors:  O Martinho; A Longatto-Filho; M B K Lambros; A Martins; C Pinheiro; A Silva; F Pardal; J Amorim; A Mackay; F Milanezi; N Tamber; K Fenwick; A Ashworth; J S Reis-Filho; J M Lopes; R M Reis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Analysis of PALB2/FANCN-associated breast cancer families.

Authors:  Marc Tischkowitz; Bing Xia; Nelly Sabbaghian; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Nancy Hamel; Guilan Li; Erik H van Beers; Lili Li; Tayma Khalil; Louise A Quenneville; Atilla Omeroglu; Aletta Poll; Pierre Lepage; Nora Wong; Petra M Nederlof; Alan Ashworth; Patricia N Tonin; Steven A Narod; David M Livingston; William D Foulkes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-04-09       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.