4.6 Article

Detection of internal tandem duplications in the FLT3 gene by different electrophoretic methods

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 301-310

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.762

Keywords

acute myeloid leukemia; agarose gel electrophoresis; capillary electrophoresis; fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3); internal tandem duplication (ITD); polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

Funding

  1. TAMOP [4.2.1/B-09/1/KONV-2010-0007]
  2. European Social Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the internal tandem duplication (ITD) in the juxtamembrane domain of the FLT3 (Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3) gene is one of the most frequent genetic alterations associated with poor prognosis. Methods: A complex evaluation of the analytical properties of the three most frequently used detection methods - PCR followed by agarose (AGE), polyacrylamide (PAGE) or capillary electrophoresis (CE) - was performed on 95 DNA samples obtained from 73 AML patients. Results: All the three methods verified the presence of a mutant allele in 20 samples from 18 patients. AGE and PAGE could detect the presence of 1%-2% mutant allele, while the detection limit of CE was 0.28%. However, acceptable reproducibility (inter-assay CV <25%) of the mutant allele rate determination was only achievable above 1.5% mutant/total allele rate. The reproducibility of the ITD size determination by CE was much better, but the ITD size calculated by PeakScanner or GeneScan analysis was 7% lower as compared to values obtained by DNA sequencing. The presence of multiple ITD was over-estimated by PAGE and AGE due to the formation of heteroduplexes. Conclusions: This study suggests the use of PCR+CE in the diagnostics and the follow-up of AML patients. The data further supports the importance of proper analytical evaluation of home-made molecular biological diagnostic tests.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available