David Bret1,2, Valentin Chappuis1,2, Delphine Poncet1,2, François Ducray2,3,4, Karen Silva1, Fabrice Mion1, Alexandre Vasiljevic1,2, Carole Ferraro-Peyret1,2, Carmine Mottolese5, Pierre Leblond6, Mathieu Gabut4, Didier Frappaz6, Nathalie Streichenberger1,2, David Meyronet1,2,4, Pierre-Paul Bringuier1,2, Marc Barritault7,8,9. 1. Service de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France. 2. University of Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 3. Service de Neuro-oncologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Neurologique, Lyon, France. 4. Transcriptome Diversity in Stem Cells Laboratory, Cancer Cell Plasticity Department, Cancer Research Centre of Lyon, INSERM U1052, CNRS, UMR 5286, Lyon, France. 5. Service de Neurochirurgie Lyon, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France. 6. Service d'Oncologie, Institut d'Hématologie et d'Oncologie Pédiatrique, Lyon, France. 7. Service de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France. marc.barritault@chu-lyon.fr. 8. University of Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France. marc.barritault@chu-lyon.fr. 9. Transcriptome Diversity in Stem Cells Laboratory, Cancer Cell Plasticity Department, Cancer Research Centre of Lyon, INSERM U1052, CNRS, UMR 5286, Lyon, France. marc.barritault@chu-lyon.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Genomic duplications and fusion involving BRAF and KIAA1549 that create fusion proteins with constitutive B-RAF kinase activity are a hallmark of pilocytic astrocytomas (PAs). The detection of KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts is of paramount importance to classify these tumors and to identify patients who could benefit from BRAF inhibitors. In a clinical setting, the available material for molecular analysis from these pediatric tumors is often limited to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. The aim of the present study was to develop a new method to detect the three most frequent KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts, 15-9, 16-11, and 16-9, where numbers refer to the exons fused together, using a FFPE-compatible multiplex quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). METHODS: We compared performance of the assay to a reference singleplex method on a collection of 46 FFPE PAs. RESULTS: The results showed that both methods are comparable. The multiplex method had an overall 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the singleplex method, and agreement between the two techniques was almost perfect (Cohen's kappa: 0.97). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the qRT-PCR efficiencies of the multiplex technique and of the singleplex assay for all fusion transcripts and for GAPDH, the latter used as a reference gene. The multiplex method consumed four times less complementary DNA (cDNA), cost less, and required half the hands-on technical time. CONCLUSION: The results show that it could be beneficial to implement the multiplex method in a clinical setting, where samples presenting low quantity of degraded RNA are not unusual.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Genomic duplications and fusion involving BRAF and KIAA1549 that create fusion proteins with constitutive B-RAF kinase activity are a hallmark of pilocytic astrocytomas (PAs). The detection of KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts is of paramount importance to classify these tumors and to identify patients who could benefit from BRAF inhibitors. In a clinical setting, the available material for molecular analysis from these pediatric tumors is often limited to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. The aim of the present study was to develop a new method to detect the three most frequent KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts, 15-9, 16-11, and 16-9, where numbers refer to the exons fused together, using a FFPE-compatible multiplex quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). METHODS: We compared performance of the assay to a reference singleplex method on a collection of 46 FFPE PAs. RESULTS: The results showed that both methods are comparable. The multiplex method had an overall 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the singleplex method, and agreement between the two techniques was almost perfect (Cohen's kappa: 0.97). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the qRT-PCR efficiencies of the multiplex technique and of the singleplex assay for all fusion transcripts and for GAPDH, the latter used as a reference gene. The multiplex method consumed four times less complementary DNA (cDNA), cost less, and required half the hands-on technical time. CONCLUSION: The results show that it could be beneficial to implement the multiplex method in a clinical setting, where samples presenting low quantity of degraded RNA are not unusual.
Authors: David T W Jones; Barbara Hutter; Natalie Jäger; Andrey Korshunov; Marcel Kool; Hans-Jörg Warnatz; Thomas Zichner; Sally R Lambert; Marina Ryzhova; Dong Anh Khuong Quang; Adam M Fontebasso; Adrian M Stütz; Sonja Hutter; Marc Zuckermann; Dominik Sturm; Jan Gronych; Bärbel Lasitschka; Sabine Schmidt; Huriye Seker-Cin; Hendrik Witt; Marc Sultan; Meryem Ralser; Paul A Northcott; Volker Hovestadt; Sebastian Bender; Elke Pfaff; Sebastian Stark; Damien Faury; Jeremy Schwartzentruber; Jacek Majewski; Ursula D Weber; Marc Zapatka; Benjamin Raeder; Matthias Schlesner; Catherine L Worth; Cynthia C Bartholomae; Christof von Kalle; Charles D Imbusch; Sylwester Radomski; Chris Lawerenz; Peter van Sluis; Jan Koster; Richard Volckmann; Rogier Versteeg; Hans Lehrach; Camelia Monoranu; Beate Winkler; Andreas Unterberg; Christel Herold-Mende; Till Milde; Andreas E Kulozik; Martin Ebinger; Martin U Schuhmann; Yoon-Jae Cho; Scott L Pomeroy; Andreas von Deimling; Olaf Witt; Michael D Taylor; Stephan Wolf; Matthias A Karajannis; Charles G Eberhart; Wolfram Scheurlen; Martin Hasselblatt; Keith L Ligon; Mark W Kieran; Jan O Korbel; Marie-Laure Yaspo; Benedikt Brors; Jörg Felsberg; Guido Reifenberger; V Peter Collins; Nada Jabado; Roland Eils; Peter Lichter; Stefan M Pfister Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-06-30 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jian Ye; George Coulouris; Irena Zaretskaya; Ioana Cutcutache; Steve Rozen; Thomas L Madden Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Matthew D Cykowski; Richard A Allen; Angela C Kanaly; Kar-Ming Fung; Roxanne Marshall; Arie Perry; Ethan D Stolzenberg; S Terence Dunn Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Jeffrey S Ross; Kai Wang; Juliann Chmielecki; Laurie Gay; Adrienne Johnson; Jacob Chudnovsky; Roman Yelensky; Doron Lipson; Siraj M Ali; Julia A Elvin; Jo-Anne Vergilio; Steven Roels; Vincent A Miller; Brooke N Nakamura; Adam Gray; Michael K Wong; Philip J Stephens Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 7.396