BACKGROUND: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (array CGH) is increasingly applied on DNA obtained from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, but in a proportion of cases this type of DNA is unsuitable. Due to the high experimental costs of array CGH and unreliable methods for DNA quality testing, better prediction methods are needed. The aim of this study was to accurately determine the quality of FFPE DNA input in order to predict quality of array CGH outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DNA quality was assessed by isothermal amplification and compared to array CGH quality on 59 FFPE gastric cancer samples, one FFPE colorectal cancer sample, two FFPE normal uvula samples, one fresh frozen and six FFPE HNSCC samples. Gastric cancer DNA was also quality tested by beta-globin PCR. RESULTS: Accurate prediction of DNA quality using the isothermal amplification was observed in the colorectal carcinoma, HNSCC and uvula samples. In gastric cancer samples, the isothermal amplification was a more accurate method for selecting good quality DNA for array CGH compared to using PCR product lengths. The isothermal amplification product was used for array CGH and compared to the results achieved using non-amplified DNA in four of the samples. DNAs before and after amplification yielded the same segmentation patterns of chromosomal copy number changes for both the fresh DNA sample and the FFPE samples. CONCLUSION: The efficiency of isothermal DNA amplification is a reliable predictor for array CGH quality. The amplification product itself can be used for array CGH, even starting with FFPE derived DNA samples.
BACKGROUND: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (array CGH) is increasingly applied on DNA obtained from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, but in a proportion of cases this type of DNA is unsuitable. Due to the high experimental costs of array CGH and unreliable methods for DNA quality testing, better prediction methods are needed. The aim of this study was to accurately determine the quality of FFPE DNA input in order to predict quality of array CGH outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: DNA quality was assessed by isothermal amplification and compared to array CGH quality on 59 FFPE gastric cancer samples, one FFPE colorectal cancer sample, two FFPE normal uvula samples, one fresh frozen and six FFPE HNSCC samples. Gastric cancer DNA was also quality tested by beta-globin PCR. RESULTS: Accurate prediction of DNA quality using the isothermal amplification was observed in the colorectal carcinoma, HNSCC and uvula samples. In gastric cancer samples, the isothermal amplification was a more accurate method for selecting good quality DNA for array CGH compared to using PCR product lengths. The isothermal amplification product was used for array CGH and compared to the results achieved using non-amplified DNA in four of the samples. DNAs before and after amplification yielded the same segmentation patterns of chromosomal copy number changes for both the fresh DNA sample and the FFPE samples. CONCLUSION: The efficiency of isothermal DNA amplification is a reliable predictor for array CGH quality. The amplification product itself can be used for array CGH, even starting with FFPE derived DNA samples.
Authors: Tineke E Buffart; Beatriz Carvalho; Nicole C T van Grieken; Wessel N van Wieringen; Marianne Tijssen; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Henk M W Verheul; Heike I Grabsch; Bauke Ylstra; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Oncologist Date: 2012-04-24
Authors: Linda J W Bosch; Sandra Mongera; Jochim S Terhaar Sive Droste; Frank A Oort; Sietze T van Turenhout; Maarten T Penning; Joost Louwagie; Chris J J Mulder; Manon van Engeland; Beatriz Carvalho; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Tineke E Buffart; Melanie Louw; Nicole C T van Grieken; Marianne Tijssen; Beatriz Carvalho; Bauke Ylstra; Heike Grabsch; Chris J J Mulder; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Schalk W van der Merwe; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Justin M Craig; Natalie Vena; Shakti Ramkissoon; Ahmed Idbaih; Shaun D Fouse; Memet Ozek; Aydin Sav; D Ashley Hill; Linda R Margraf; Charles G Eberhart; Mark W Kieran; Andrew D Norden; Patrick Y Wen; Massimo Loda; Sandro Santagata; Keith L Ligon; Azra H Ligon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Josien C Haan; Mariette Labots; Christian Rausch; Miriam Koopman; Jolien Tol; Leonie J M Mekenkamp; Mark A van de Wiel; Danielle Israeli; Hendrik F van Essen; Nicole C T van Grieken; Quirinus J M Voorham; Linda J W Bosch; Xueping Qu; Omar Kabbarah; Henk M W Verheul; Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelis J A Punt; Bauke Ylstra; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Tineke E Buffart; Nicole C T van Grieken; Marianne Tijssen; Jordy Coffa; Bauke Ylstra; Heike I Grabsch; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Beatriz Carvalho; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2009-08-21 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Afra Zaal; Wouter J Peyrot; P M J J Berns; Maria E L van der Burg; Jan H W Veerbeek; J Baptist Trimbos; Isabelle Cadron; Paul J van Diest; Wessel N van Wieringen; Oscar Krijgsman; Gerrit A Meijer; Jurgen M J Piek; Petra J Timmers; Ignace Vergote; René H M Verheijen; Bauke Ylstra; Ronald P Zweemer Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 6.730