4.2 Article

Detection of cryptic chromosomal lesions including acquired segmental uniparental disomy in advanced and low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL HEMATOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 11, Pages 1728-1738

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.08.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [U54 RR019391] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [K24 HL077522, HL082983] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Using metaphase cytogenetics (MC), chromosomal defects can be detected in 40% to 60% of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS); cytogenetic results have a major impact on prognosis. We hypothesize that more precise methods of chromosomal analysis will detect new/additional cryptic lesions in a higher proportion of MDS patients. Methods. We have applied single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays (SNP-A) to perform high-resolution karyotyping in MDS to determine gene copy number and detect loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Results. Using this method, chromosomal defects were found in 82% of MDS patients vs 50% as measured by MC; lesions were present in 68% of patients with normal MC, while in 81% of those with abnormal MC, new aberrations were found. In addition to gains or losses of chromosomal material, areas of LOH due to segmental uniparental disomy were found in 33% of patients. Conclusion. SNP-A findings demonstrate that chromosomal lesions are present in a much higher proportion of patients than predicted by traditional cytogenetics. These lesions may reflect an underlying generalized chromosomal instability in MDS. Additional previously cryptic defects may explain the clinical variability of MDS. New lesions may have important prognostic implications, suggesting that, in the future, SNP-A-based karyotyping may complement MC in laboratory evaluation of MDS. (C) 2007 ISEH - Society for Hematology and Stem Cells. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available