Molecular & Cellular Toxicology

The Korean Society of Toxicogenomics and Toxicoproteomics (대한독성유전 단백체학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Non-amplified and Amplified DNA Preparation Methods for Array-comparative Gnomic Hybridization Analysis

  • Joo, Hong-Jin (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jung, Seung-Hyun (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Yim, Seon-Hee (Integrated Research Center for Genome Polymorphism, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Min (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Xu, Hai-Dong (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Shin, Seung-Hun (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Young (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kang, Hyun-Mi (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Chung, Yeun-Jun (Department of Microbiology, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2008.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Tumor tissue is usually contaminated by normal tissue components, which reduces the sensitivity of analysis for exploring genetic alterations. Although microdissection has been adopted to minimize the contamination of tumor DNA with normal cell components, there is a concern over the amount of microdissected DNA not enough to be applied to array-CGH reaction. To amplify the extracted DNA, several whole genome amplification (WGA) methods have been developed, but objective comparison of the array-CGH outputs using different types of WGA methods is still scarce. In this study, we compared the performance of non-amplified microdissected DNA and DNA amplified in 2 WGA methods such as degenerative oligonucleotide primed (DOP)-PCR, and multiple strand displacement amplification (MDA) using Phi 29 DNA polymerase. Genomic DNA was also used to make a comparison. We applied those 4 DNAs to whole genome BAC array to compare the false positive detection rate (FPDR) and sensitivity in detecting copy number alterations under the same hybridization condition. As a result microdissected DNA method showed the lowest FPDR and the highest sensitivity. Among WGA methods, DOP-PCR amplified DNA showed better sensitivity but similar FPDR to MDA-amplified method. These results demonstrate the advantage and applicability of microdissection for array-CGH analysis, and provide useful information for choosing amplification methods to study copy number alterations, especially based on precancerous and microscopically invaded lesions.

Keywords

References

  1. Albertson, D. G. & Pinkel, D. Genomic microarrays in human genetic disease and cancer. Hum Mol Genet 12:R145-152 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddg016
  2. Chung, Y. J. et al. A whole-genome mouse BAC microarray with 1-Mb resolution for analysis of DNA copy number changes by array comparative genomic hybridization. Genome Res 14:188-196 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1878804
  3. Kim, M. Y. et al. Recurrent genomic alterations with impact on survival in colorectal cancer identified by genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization. Gastroenterology 131:1913-1924 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.10.021
  4. Kim, T. M. et al. Genome-wide screening of genomic alterations and their clinicopathologic implications in non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 11:8235-8242 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1157
  5. Kang, H. M. et al. DNA copy number alterations and expression of relevant genes in mouse thymic lymphomas induced by gamma-irradiation and N-methyl- N-nitrosourea. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 166:27-35 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2005.08.002
  6. Cardoso, J. et al. Genomic profiling by DNA amplification of laser capture microdissected tissues and array CGH. Nucleic Acids Res 32:e146 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gnh142
  7. Johnson, N. A. et al. Application of array CGH on archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues including small numbers of microdissected cells. Lab Invest 86:968-978 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.3700441
  8. Garnis, C., Coe, B. P., Lam, S. L., MacAulay, C. & Lam, W. L. High-resolution array CGH increases heterogeneity tolerance in the analysis of clinical samples. Genomics 85:790-793 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2005.02.015
  9. Hosono, S. et al. Unbiased whole genome amplification directly from clinical samples. Genome Res 13: 954-964 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.816903
  10. Dean, F. B., Nelson, J. R., Giesler, T. L. & Lasken, R. S. Rapid amplification of plasmid and phage DNA using Phi29 DNA polymerase and multiply-primed rolling circle amplification. Genome Res 11:1095-1099 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.180501
  11. Dean, F. B. et al. Comprehensive human genome amplification using multiple displacement amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:5261-5266 (2002)
  12. Massion, P. P. et al. Genomic copy number analysis of non-small cell lung cancer using array comparative genomic hybridization: implications of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathway. Cancer Res 62:3636-3640 (2002)
  13. Shibata, T. et al. Genetic classification of lung adenocarcinoma based on array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis: its association with clinicopathologic features. Clin Cancer Res 11:6177-6185 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0293
  14. Ng, G., Roberts, I. & Coleman, N. Evaluation of 3 methods of whole-genome amplification for subsequent metaphase comparative genomic hybridization. Diagn Mol Pathol 14:203-212 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000177801.60121.05
  15. Fiegler, H. et al. DNA microarrays for comparative genomic hybridization based on DOP-PCR amplification of BAC and PAC clones. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 36:361-374 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.10155
  16. Sambrook, J. & Russel, D. W. Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual, 3rd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York (2001)
  17. Kim, S. Y. et al. ArrayCyGHt: a web application for analysis and visualization of arrayCGH data. Bioinformatics 21:2554-2555 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti357
  18. Hackett, C. S. et al. Genome-wide array CGH analysis of murine neuroblastoma reveals distinct genomic aberrations which parallel those in human tumors. Cancer Res 63:5266-5273 (2003)