4.4 Article

Array-based comparative genomic hybridization from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast tumors

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 65-71

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60010-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA089715, CA89715, P50 CA058207, R01 CA092374, CA92374, CA58207] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

identification of prognostic and predictive genomic markers requires long-term clinical follow-up of patients. Extraction of high-quality DNA from archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material is essential for such studies. Of particular importance is a robust reproducible method of whole genome amplification for small tissue samples. This is especially true for high-resolution analytical approaches because different genomic regions and sequences may amplify differentially. We have tested a number of protocols for DNA amplification for array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), in which relative copy number of the entire genome is measured at 1 to 2 mb resolution. Both random-primed amplification and degenerate oligonucleotide-primed amplification approaches were tested using varying amounts of fresh and paraffin-extracted normal and breast tumor input DNAs. We found that randomprimed amplification was clearly superior to degenerate oligonucleotide-primed amplification for array-based CGH. The best quality and reproducibility strongly depended on accurate determination of the amount of input DNA using a quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based method. Reproducible and high-quality results were attained using 50 ng of input DNA, and some samples yielded quality results with as little as 5 ng input DNA. We conclude that randomprimed amplification of DNA isolated from paraffin sections is a robust and reproducible approach for array-based CGH analysis of archival tumor samples.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available