3.8 Article

A combination of molecular cytogenetic analyses reveals complex genetic alterations in conventional renal cell carcinoma

Journal

CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS
Volume 159, Issue 1, Pages 1-9

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2004.09.020

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here we report the complex pattern of genomic imbalances and rearrangements in a panel of 19 renal cell carcinoma cell lines detected with molecular cytogenetic analysis. Consistent heterogeneity in chromosome number was found, and most cell lines showed a near-triploid chromosome complement. Several cell lines showed deletions of the TP53 (alias p53), CDKN2A (alias p16), and VHL genes. Multiplex fluorescence in situ hybridization (M-FISH) analysis revealed chromosome 3 translocated to several other partners chromosomes, as well as breakage events commonly affecting chromosomes 1, 5, 8, 10, and 17. The most common abnormality detected with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was deletions of chromosome 3p, with loss of the RASSF1, FHIT, and p44S10 loci frequently involved. CGH gain of 5q showed overrepresentation of the EGR1 and CSF1R genes. Recurrent alterations to chromosome 7 included rearrangement of 7q11 and gains of the EGFR, T1F1, and RFC2 genes. Several lines exhibited rearrangement of 12q11 similar to q14 and overrepresentation of CDK4 and SAS loci. M-FISH revealed several other recurrent translocations, and CGH findings included loss of 9p, 14q, and 18q and gain of 8q, 12, and 20. Further genornic microarray changes included loss of MTAP, IGH@, HTR1B, and SMAD4 (previously MADH4) and gains of MYC and TOP1. An excellent correlation was observed between the genomic array and FISH data, demonstrating that this technique is effective and accurate. The aberrations detected here may reflect important pathways in renal cancer pathogenesis. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available