BACKGROUND: The results of cytogenetic investigations on unbalanced chromosome anomalies, both constitutional and acquired, were largely improved by comparative genomic hybridization on microarray (a-CGH), but in mosaicism the ability of a-CGH to reliably detect imbalances is not yet well established. This problem of sensitivity is even more relevant in acquired mosaicism in neoplastic diseases, where cells carrying acquired imbalances coexist with normal cells, in particular when the proportion of abnormal cells may be low.We constructed a synthetic mosaicism by mixing the DNA of three patients carrying altogether seven chromosome imbalances with normal sex-matched DNA. Dilutions were prepared mimicking 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 10% and 15% levels of mosaicism. Oligomer-based a-CGH (244 K whole-genome system) was applied on the patients' DNA and customized slides designed around the regions of imbalance were used for the synthetic mosaics. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The a-CGH on the synthetic mosaics proved to be able to detect as low as 8% abnormal cells in the tissue examined. Although in our experiment some regions of imbalances escaped to be revealed at this level, and were detected only at 10-15% level, it should be remarked that these ones were the smallest analyzed, and that the imbalances recurrent as clonal anomalies in cancer and leukaemia are similar in size to those revealed at 8% level.
BACKGROUND: The results of cytogenetic investigations on unbalanced chromosome anomalies, both constitutional and acquired, were largely improved by comparative genomic hybridization on microarray (a-CGH), but in mosaicism the ability of a-CGH to reliably detect imbalances is not yet well established. This problem of sensitivity is even more relevant in acquired mosaicism in neoplastic diseases, where cells carrying acquired imbalances coexist with normal cells, in particular when the proportion of abnormal cells may be low.We constructed a synthetic mosaicism by mixing the DNA of three patients carrying altogether seven chromosome imbalances with normal sex-matched DNA. Dilutions were prepared mimicking 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 10% and 15% levels of mosaicism. Oligomer-based a-CGH (244 K whole-genome system) was applied on the patients' DNA and customized slides designed around the regions of imbalance were used for the synthetic mosaics. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The a-CGH on the synthetic mosaics proved to be able to detect as low as 8% abnormal cells in the tissue examined. Although in our experiment some regions of imbalances escaped to be revealed at this level, and were detected only at 10-15% level, it should be remarked that these ones were the smallest analyzed, and that the imbalances recurrent as clonal anomalies in cancer and leukaemia are similar in size to those revealed at 8% level.
Authors: Elia Mattarucchi; Milena Marsoni; Alberto Passi; Francesco Lo Curto; Francesco Pasquali; Giovanni Porta Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Blake C Ballif; Emily A Rorem; Kyle Sundin; Matt Lincicum; Shannon Gaskin; Justine Coppinger; Catherine D Kashork; Lisa G Shaffer; Bassem A Bejjani Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Verena L Bauer; Herbert Braselmann; Michael Henke; Dominik Mattern; Axel Walch; Kristian Unger; Michael Baudis; Silke Lassmann; Reinhard Huber; Johannes Wienberg; Martin Werner; Horst F Zitzelsberger Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Roberto Valli; Emanuela Maserati; Cristina Marletta; Barbara Pressato; Francesco Lo Curto; Francesco Pasquali Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2011-04
Authors: Daniel T Starczynowski; Suzanne Vercauteren; Adele Telenius; Sandy Sung; Kaoru Tohyama; Angela Brooks-Wilson; John J Spinelli; Connie J Eaves; Allen C Eaves; Douglas E Horsman; Wan L Lam; Aly Karsan Journal: Blood Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Gurdeep S Sagoo; Adam S Butterworth; Simon Sanderson; Charles Shaw-Smith; Julian P T Higgins; Hilary Burton Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Marilyn L Slovak; David D Smith; Victoria Bedell; Ya-Hsuan Hsu; Margaret O'Donnell; Stephen J Forman; Karl Gaal; Lisa McDaniel; Roger Schultz; Blake C Ballif; Lisa G Shaffer Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: M De Gregori; R Ciccone; P Magini; T Pramparo; S Gimelli; J Messa; F Novara; A Vetro; E Rossi; P Maraschio; M C Bonaglia; C Anichini; G B Ferrero; M Silengo; E Fazzi; A Zatterale; R Fischetto; C Previderé; S Belli; A Turci; G Calabrese; F Bernardi; E Meneghelli; M Riegel; M Rocchi; S Guerneri; F Lalatta; L Zelante; C Romano; M Fichera; T Mattina; G Arrigo; M Zollino; S Giglio; F Lonardo; A Bonfante; A Ferlini; F Cifuentes; H Van Esch; L Backx; A Schinzel; J R Vermeesch; O Zuffardi Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Ronan Desmond; Danielle M Townsley; Bogdan Dumitriu; Matthew J Olnes; Phillip Scheinberg; Margaret Bevans; Ankur R Parikh; Kinneret Broder; Katherine R Calvo; Colin O Wu; Neal S Young; Cynthia E Dunbar Journal: Blood Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Oscar Krijgsman; Daniëlle Israeli; Hendrik F van Essen; Paul P Eijk; Michel L M Berens; Clemens H M Mellink; Aggie W Nieuwint; Marjan M Weiss; Renske D M Steenbergen; Gerrit A Meijer; Bauke Ylstra Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Cristina Marletta; Roberto Valli; Barbara Pressato; Lydia Mare; Giuseppe Montalbano; Giuseppe Menna; Giuseppe Loffredo; Maria Ester Bernardo; Luciana Vinti; Simona Ferrari; Alessandra Di Cesare-Merlone; Marco Zecca; Francesco Lo Curto; Franco Locatelli; Francesco Pasquali; Emanuela Maserati Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Duncan Baker; Adam J Hirst; Paul J Gokhale; Miguel A Juarez; Steve Williams; Mark Wheeler; Kerry Bean; Thomas F Allison; Harry D Moore; Peter W Andrews; Ivana Barbaric Journal: Stem Cell Reports Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 7.765