4.5 Article

Detection limits of DNA copy number alterations in heterogeneous cell populations

Journal

CELLULAR ONCOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 27-36

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13402-012-0108-2

Keywords

aCGH; Microarray; Clinical genetics; Tumor heterogeneity; Mosaicism

Funding

  1. VUmc Institute for Cancer and Immunology (VUmc CCA/V-ICI)
  2. Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, DeCoDe project [03O-101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) is a widely used technique to assess chromosomal copy number alterations. Chromosomal content, however, is often not uniform throughout cell populations. Here we evaluated to what extent aCGH can detect DNA copy number alterations in heterogeneous cell populations. A systematic evaluation is currently lacking, despite its importance in diagnostics and research. The detection limits reported are a compound of analytical software and laboratory techniques and do not account for the number of probes in relation to sample homogeneity. Detection limits were explored with DNA isolated from a patient with intellectual disability (ID) and from tumor cell line BT474. Both were diluted with increasing amounts of normal DNA to simulate different levels of cellularity. Samples were hybridized on microarrays containing 180,880 oligonucleotides evenly distributed over the genome (spacing similar to 17 kb). Single copy number alterations, represented by down to 249 probes (4 Mb) and present in 10 % of a cell population, could be detected. Alterations encompassing as few as 14 probes (similar to 238 Kb) could also be detected, but for this a 35 % mosaic level was required. DNA copy number alterations can be detected in cell populations containing 10 % abnormal cells. Detection of sub-megabase alterations requires a higher percentage of abnormal cells or microarrays with a higher probe density.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available