OBJECTIVES: To develop a novel assay that uses branched DNA technology to measure TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, as genetic rearrangement of TMPRSS2 regulatory sequences and coding sequences of the ERG gene has been detected in nearly half of prostate cancers, but quantitative assays to detect such TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion have been limited to real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques that rely on reverse transcriptase-based amplification. METHODS: Branched DNA probes were designed to detect TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer cell lines. Nonquantitative nested reverse transcription (RT)-PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used to ascertain TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion status in prostate tissues. RESULTS: The branched DNA assay detected TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion from less than 200 pg of prostate cancer RNA, whereas more than 600 pg of RNA was required for fusion gene detection by one step real-time RT-PCR. In evaluation of clinical prostatectomy specimens, the branched DNA assay showed a concordant detectable fusion signal in all 9 clinical samples that had fusion detected by nested RT-PCR or FISH. Moreover, branched DNA detected gene fusion in 2 of 16 prostate cancer tissue specimens that was not detected by FISH or nested RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a branched DNA assay that is effective for detection of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer clinical specimens, thus providing an alternative method to ascertain TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in human prostate cancer tissue.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a novel assay that uses branched DNA technology to measure TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, as genetic rearrangement of TMPRSS2 regulatory sequences and coding sequences of the ERG gene has been detected in nearly half of prostate cancers, but quantitative assays to detect such TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion have been limited to real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques that rely on reverse transcriptase-based amplification. METHODS: Branched DNA probes were designed to detect TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancer cell lines. Nonquantitative nested reverse transcription (RT)-PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used to ascertain TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion status in prostate tissues. RESULTS: The branched DNA assay detected TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion from less than 200 pg of prostate cancer RNA, whereas more than 600 pg of RNA was required for fusion gene detection by one step real-time RT-PCR. In evaluation of clinical prostatectomy specimens, the branched DNA assay showed a concordant detectable fusion signal in all 9 clinical samples that had fusion detected by nested RT-PCR or FISH. Moreover, branched DNA detected gene fusion in 2 of 16 prostate cancer tissue specimens that was not detected by FISH or nested RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a branched DNA assay that is effective for detection of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in prostate cancerclinical specimens, thus providing an alternative method to ascertain TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion in humanprostate cancer tissue.
Authors: Robert K Nam; Linda Sugar; Zhenghui Wang; Wenyi Yang; Richard Kitching; Laurence H Klotz; Vasundara Venkateswaran; Steven A Narod; Arun Seth Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Sven Perner; Elizabeth M Genega; Martin Sanda; Matthias D Hofer; Kirsten D Mertz; Pamela L Paris; Jeff Simko; Tarek A Bismar; Gustavo Ayala; Rajal B Shah; Massimo Loda; Mark A Rubin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jürgen Soutschek; Akin Akinc; Birgit Bramlage; Klaus Charisse; Rainer Constien; Mary Donoghue; Sayda Elbashir; Anke Geick; Philipp Hadwiger; Jens Harborth; Matthias John; Venkitasamy Kesavan; Gary Lavine; Rajendra K Pandey; Timothy Racie; Kallanthottathil G Rajeev; Ingo Röhl; Ivanka Toudjarska; Gang Wang; Silvio Wuschko; David Bumcrot; Victor Koteliansky; Stefan Limmer; Muthiah Manoharan; Hans-Peter Vornlocher Journal: Nature Date: 2004-11-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: F Demichelis; K Fall; S Perner; O Andrén; F Schmidt; S R Setlur; Y Hoshida; J-M Mosquera; Y Pawitan; C Lee; H-O Adami; L A Mucci; P W Kantoff; S-O Andersson; A M Chinnaiyan; J-E Johansson; M A Rubin Journal: Oncogene Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Daphne Hessels; Frank P Smit; Gerald W Verhaegh; J Alfred Witjes; Erik B Cornel; Jack A Schalken Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sven Perner; Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Francesca Demichelis; Matthias D Hofer; Pamela L Paris; Jeff Simko; Colin Collins; Tarek A Bismar; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Angelo M De Marzo; Mark A Rubin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Mark J Canet; Rhiannon N Hardwick; April D Lake; Anika L Dzierlenga; John D Clarke; Nathan J Cherrington Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: James D Brooks; Wei Wei; Sarah Hawley; Heidi Auman; Lisa Newcomb; Hilary Boyer; Ladan Fazli; Jeff Simko; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Dean A Troyer; Peter R Carroll; Martin Gleave; Raymond Lance; Daniel W Lin; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Lawrence D True; Ziding Feng; Jesse K McKenney Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A Fernández-Serra; L Rubio; A Calatrava; J Rubio-Briones; R Salgado; R Gil-Benso; B Espinet; Z García-Casado; J A López-Guerrero Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 3.411