Literature DB >> 7522536

Optimizing comparative genomic hybridization for analysis of DNA sequence copy number changes in solid tumors.

O P Kallioniemi1, A Kallioniemi, J Piper, J Isola, F M Waldman, J W Gray, D Pinkel.   

Abstract

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a powerful new method for molecular cytogenetic analysis of cancer. In a single hybridization, CGH provides an overview of DNA sequence copy number changes (losses, deletions, gains, amplifications) in a tumor specimen and maps these changes on normal chromosomes. CGH is based on the in situ hybridization of differentially labeled total genomic tumor DNA and normal reference DNA to normal human metaphase chromosomes. After hybridization and fluorescent staining of the bound DNAs, copy number variations among the different sequences in the tumor DNA are detected by measuring the tumor/normal fluorescence intensity ratio for each locus in the target metaphase chromosomes. CGH is in particular useful for analysis of DNA sequence copy number changes in common solid tumors where high-quality metaphase preparations are often difficult to make, and where complex karyotypes with numerous markers, double minutes, and homogeneously stained chromosomal regions are common. CGH only detects changes that are present in a substantial proportion of tumor cells (i.e., clonal aberrations). It does not reveal translocations, inversions, and other aberrations that do not change copy number. At present, CGH is a research tool that complements previous methods for genetic analysis. CGH will advance our understanding of the genetic progression of cancer and highlight important genomic regions for further study. Direct clinical applications of CGH are possible, but will require further development and validation of the technique. We describe here our recent optimized procedures for CGH, including DNA labeling, hybridization, fluorescence microscopy, digital image analysis, data interpretation, and quality control, emphasizing those steps that are most critical. We will also assess sensitivity and resolution limits of CGH as well as discuss possible future technical improvements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7522536     DOI: 10.1002/gcc.2870100403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer        ISSN: 1045-2257            Impact factor:   5.006


  158 in total

1.  Evidence of chromosomal instability in prostate cancer determined by spectral karyotyping (SKY) and interphase fish analysis.

Authors:  B Beheshti; P C Park; J M Sweet; J Trachtenberg; M A Jewett; J A Squire
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 2.  Comparative genomic hybridisation.

Authors:  M M Weiss; M A Hermsen; G A Meijer; N C van Grieken; J P Baak; E J Kuipers; P J van Diest
Journal:  Mol Pathol       Date:  1999-10

3.  A simple method for PCR based analyses of immunohistochemically stained, microdissected, formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded material.

Authors:  H E Alcock; T J Stephenson; J A Royds; D W Hammond
Journal:  Mol Pathol       Date:  1999-06

Review 4.  Methods of molecular analysis: assessing losses and gains in tumours.

Authors:  R Roylance
Journal:  Mol Pathol       Date:  2002-02

5.  Characterization of genomic alterations in hepatoblastomas. A role for gains on chromosomes 8q and 20 as predictors of poor outcome.

Authors:  R G Weber; T Pietsch; D von Schweinitz; P Lichter
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.307

6.  The Art and Applications of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Endocrine Pathology.

Authors:  George Kontogeorgos
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.943

7.  Cytogenetic profile of unknown primary tumors: clues for their pathogenesis and clinical management.

Authors:  Dimitra Pantou; Haroula Tsarouha; Anna Papadopoulou; Louiza Mahaira; Ioannis Kyriazoglou; Nikiforos Apostolikas; Sophia Markidou; Theoni Trangas; Nikos Pandis; Georgia Bardi
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.715

8.  The abnormalities of chromosome 8 in two hepatocellular carcinoma cell clones with the same genetic background and different metastatic potential.

Authors:  Jiong Yang; Lun-Xiu Qin; Sheng-Long Ye; Yin-Kun Liu; Yan Li; Dong-Mei Gao; Jie Chen; Zhao-You Tang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  High-level DNA amplifications are common genetic aberrations in B-cell neoplasms.

Authors:  C A Werner; H Döhner; S Joos; L H Trümper; M Baudis; T F Barth; G Ott; P Möller; P Lichter; M Bentz
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.307

10.  Chromosome 8 numerical aberrations in stage II invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation with patient outcome and poor prognosis.

Authors:  Yutaka Tagawa; Toru Yasutake; Yasushi Ikuta; Tadayuki Oka; Ryusuke Terada
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.