TY - JOUR
T1 - Challenges in array comparative genomic hybridization for the analysis of cancer samples
AU - Nowak, Norma J.
AU - Miecznikowski, Jeffrey
AU - Moore, Stephen R.
AU - Gaile, Daniel
AU - Bobadilla, Dolores
AU - Smith, David D.
AU - Kernstine, Kemp
AU - Forman, Stephen J.
AU - Mhawech-Fauceglia, Paulette
AU - Reid, Mary
AU - Stoler, Daniel
AU - Loree, Thom
AU - Rigual, Nestor
AU - Sullivan, Maureen
AU - Weiss, Lawrence M.
AU - Hicks, David
AU - Slovak, Marilyn L.
PY - 2007/9
Y1 - 2007/9
N2 - PURPOSE: To address some of the challenges facing the incorporation of array comparative genomic hybridization technology as a clinical tool, including archived tumor tissue, tumor heterogeneity, DNA quality and quantity, and array comparative genomic hybridization platform selection and performance. METHODS: Experiments were designed to assess the impact of DNA source (e.g., archival material), quantity, and amplification on array comparative genomic hybridization results. Two microdissection methods were used to isolate tumor cells to minimize heterogeneity. These data and other data sets were used in a further performance comparison of two commonly used array comparative genomic hybridization platforms: bacterial artificial chromosome (Roswell Park Cancer Institute) and oligonucleotide (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). RESULTS: Array comparative genomic hybridization data from as few as 100 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cells isolated by laser capture microdissection and amplified were remarkably similar to array comparative genomic hybridization copy number alterations detected in the bulk (unamplified) population. Manual microdissection from frozen sections provided a rapid and inexpensive means to isolate tumor from adjacent DNA for amplification and array comparative genomic hybridization. Whole genome amplification introduced no appreciable allele bias on array comparative genomic hybridization. The array comparative genomic hybridization results provided by the bacterial artificial chromosome and Agilent platforms were concordant in general, but bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization showed far fewer outliers and overall less technical noise, which could adversely affect the statistical interpretation of the data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that copy number alterations can be robustly and reproducibly detected by array comparative genomic hybridization in DNA isolated from challenging tumor types and sources, including archival materials, low DNA yield, and heterogeneous tissues. Furthermore, bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization offers the advantage over the Agilent oligonucleotide platform of presenting fewer outliers, which could affect data interpretation.
AB - PURPOSE: To address some of the challenges facing the incorporation of array comparative genomic hybridization technology as a clinical tool, including archived tumor tissue, tumor heterogeneity, DNA quality and quantity, and array comparative genomic hybridization platform selection and performance. METHODS: Experiments were designed to assess the impact of DNA source (e.g., archival material), quantity, and amplification on array comparative genomic hybridization results. Two microdissection methods were used to isolate tumor cells to minimize heterogeneity. These data and other data sets were used in a further performance comparison of two commonly used array comparative genomic hybridization platforms: bacterial artificial chromosome (Roswell Park Cancer Institute) and oligonucleotide (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). RESULTS: Array comparative genomic hybridization data from as few as 100 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cells isolated by laser capture microdissection and amplified were remarkably similar to array comparative genomic hybridization copy number alterations detected in the bulk (unamplified) population. Manual microdissection from frozen sections provided a rapid and inexpensive means to isolate tumor from adjacent DNA for amplification and array comparative genomic hybridization. Whole genome amplification introduced no appreciable allele bias on array comparative genomic hybridization. The array comparative genomic hybridization results provided by the bacterial artificial chromosome and Agilent platforms were concordant in general, but bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization showed far fewer outliers and overall less technical noise, which could adversely affect the statistical interpretation of the data. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that copy number alterations can be robustly and reproducibly detected by array comparative genomic hybridization in DNA isolated from challenging tumor types and sources, including archival materials, low DNA yield, and heterogeneous tissues. Furthermore, bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization offers the advantage over the Agilent oligonucleotide platform of presenting fewer outliers, which could affect data interpretation.
KW - Archive tissue
KW - Array comparative genomic hybridization
KW - Cancer
KW - Tumor
KW - Whole genome amplification
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548692278&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548692278&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181461c4a
DO - 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181461c4a
M3 - Article
C2 - 17873646
AN - SCOPUS:34548692278
SN - 1098-3600
VL - 9
SP - 585
EP - 595
JO - Genetics in Medicine
JF - Genetics in Medicine
IS - 9
ER -