4.2 Article

High-efficiency genotype analysis from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissues

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 348-358

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/tpj.2010.50

关键词

genotyping; paraffin-embedded; tumor samples; genetic polymorphism

资金

  1. Breakthrough Breast Cancer
  2. Royal Marsden NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Breast Cancer Research Foundation [N003173]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA [U-01 GM61373, T-32 GM007767]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can be assayed using DNA isolated from archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, making retrospective pharmacogenetic studies possible. In this study, we describe methods that significantly increase the number of SNP determinations possible using FFPE samples. Quantifying the amount of DNA amenable to PCR (amplification-quality DNA, AQ-DNA) allows a significant reduction in the amount of sample required for Taqman-based SNP assays. Optimizing AQ-DNA input increases PCR amplification efficiency and SNP determination accuracy. DNA was extracted from 39 FFPE tumor sections and matched tumor and stromal cores, which were of the type used to generate tissue microarrays. Sections and tumor cores yielded sufficient AQ-DNA for more than 1000 SNP determinations. Seven SNPs were assessed following individual assay optimization for minimal AQ-DNA. Genotypes from tumor cores for single SNPs were 92.3-100% concordant with those obtained from sections. Using these methods, the number of SNP genotypes that can be determined from single FFPE samples is greatly increased expanding the genetic association studies possible from limited archival specimens. The use of tumor cores is of particular importance as the harvesting of tumor cores has minimal impact on the utility of the donor blocks for other purposes. The Pharmacogenomics Journal (2011) 11, 348-358; doi:10.1038/tpj.2010.50; published online 15 June 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据