Yu Fu1,2,3,4, Rui Zhang1,4, Qisheng Wu1,2,4, Jiawei Zhang1,2,4, Lihua Bao3, Jinming Li1,2,4. 1. National Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, China. 2. Graduate School, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China. 4. Beijing Engineering Research Center of Laboratory Medicine, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standards play an important role in detection of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene (FG) transcript. However, the standards widely used in laboratories are mainly based on plasmids or cDNA, which cannot accurately reflect the process of RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop armored RNA-based standards for p210 and p190 BCR-ABL1FG transcripts' quantification. METHODS: Using overlapping polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, we first linked a segment of the p210 or p190 BCR-ABL1FG transcript with four control genes (CGs; ABL1, BCR, GUSB, and B2M) to form p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG. Subsequently, using armored RNA technology, we prepared p210FG-CG- and p190FG-CG-armored RNAs and the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards, the values of which were assigned by digital PCR (dPCR). RESULTS: The p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards were stable and homogeneous, and were significantly linear with r2 > 0.98. A field trial including 52 laboratories across China showed that the coefficient of variation (CV%) of BCR-ABL1 values among samples was in the range of 58.6%-129.6% for p210 samples and 73.2%-194.0% for p190 samples when using local standards. By contrast, when using the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards, the CV% of BCR-ABL1 values was decreased to 35.6%-124.9% and 36.6%-170.6% for p210 and p190 samples, respectively. In addition, 33.3% (3/9) of the p210 and p190 samples had CV% values <50.0%, whereas 44.4% (4/9) and 77.8% (7/9) of the samples had lower CV% values when using the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards. CONCLUSION: The overall variability of detection of BCR-ABL1 transcripts decreased significantly when using the p210FG-CG or p190FG-CG standards, especially the p190FG-CG standard.
BACKGROUND: Standards play an important role in detection of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene (FG) transcript. However, the standards widely used in laboratories are mainly based on plasmids or cDNA, which cannot accurately reflect the process of RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop armored RNA-based standards for p210 and p190 BCR-ABL1FG transcripts' quantification. METHODS: Using overlapping polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, we first linked a segment of the p210 or p190 BCR-ABL1FG transcript with four control genes (CGs; ABL1, BCR, GUSB, and B2M) to form p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG. Subsequently, using armored RNA technology, we prepared p210FG-CG- and p190FG-CG-armored RNAs and the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards, the values of which were assigned by digital PCR (dPCR). RESULTS: The p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards were stable and homogeneous, and were significantly linear with r2 > 0.98. A field trial including 52 laboratories across China showed that the coefficient of variation (CV%) of BCR-ABL1 values among samples was in the range of 58.6%-129.6% for p210 samples and 73.2%-194.0% for p190 samples when using local standards. By contrast, when using the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards, the CV% of BCR-ABL1 values was decreased to 35.6%-124.9% and 36.6%-170.6% for p210 and p190 samples, respectively. In addition, 33.3% (3/9) of the p210 and p190 samples had CV% values <50.0%, whereas 44.4% (4/9) and 77.8% (7/9) of the samples had lower CV% values when using the p210FG-CG and p190FG-CG standards. CONCLUSION: The overall variability of detection of BCR-ABL1 transcripts decreased significantly when using the p210FG-CG or p190FG-CG standards, especially the p190FG-CG standard.
Authors: C A Westbrook; A L Hooberman; C Spino; R K Dodge; R A Larson; F Davey; D H Wurster-Hill; R E Sobol; C Schiffer; C D Bloomfield Journal: Blood Date: 1992-12-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Mary Alikian; Alexandra S Whale; Susanna Akiki; Kim Piechocki; Celia Torrado; Thet Myint; Simon Cowen; Michael Griffiths; Alistair G Reid; Jane Apperley; Helen White; Jim F Huggett; Letizia Foroni Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: J Gabert; E Beillard; V H J van der Velden; W Bi; D Grimwade; N Pallisgaard; G Barbany; G Cazzaniga; J M Cayuela; H Cavé; F Pane; J L E Aerts; D De Micheli; X Thirion; V Pradel; M González; S Viehmann; M Malec; G Saglio; J J M van Dongen Journal: Leukemia Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Stephen G O'Brien; François Guilhot; Richard A Larson; Insa Gathmann; Michele Baccarani; Francisco Cervantes; Jan J Cornelissen; Thomas Fischer; Andreas Hochhaus; Timothy Hughes; Klaus Lechner; Johan L Nielsen; Philippe Rousselot; Josy Reiffers; Giuseppe Saglio; John Shepherd; Bengt Simonsson; Alois Gratwohl; John M Goldman; Hagop Kantarjian; Kerry Taylor; Gregor Verhoef; Ann E Bolton; Renaud Capdeville; Brian J Druker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N C P Cross; H E White; T Ernst; L Welden; C Dietz; G Saglio; F-X Mahon; C C Wong; D Zheng; S Wong; S-S Wang; S Akiki; F Albano; H Andrikovics; J Anwar; G Balatzenko; I Bendit; J Beveridge; N Boeckx; N Cerveira; S-M Cheng; D Colomer; S Czurda; F Daraio; S Dulucq; L Eggen; H El Housni; G Gerrard; M Gniot; B Izzo; D Jacquin; J J W M Janssen; S Jeromin; T Jurcek; D-W Kim; K Machova-Polakova; J Martinez-Lopez; M McBean; S Mesanovic; G Mitterbauer-Hohendanner; H Mobtaker; M-J Mozziconacci; T Pajič; N Pallisgaard; P Panagiotidis; R D Press; Y-Z Qin; J Radich; T Sacha; T Touloumenidou; P Waits; E Wilkinson; R Zadro; M C Müller; A Hochhaus; S Branford Journal: Leukemia Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 11.528