Whole genome amplification for CGH analysis: Linker-adapter PCR as the method of choice for difficult and limited samples

Division of Applied & Experimental Oncology, Institute of Cancer Research, Vienna University, Vienna, Austria.
Cytometry Part A (Impact Factor: 2.93). 09/2004; 61(1):26-34. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.20060
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a powerful method to investigate chromosomal imbalances in tumor cells. However, DNA quantity and quality can be limiting factors for successful CGH analysis. The aim of this study was to investigate the applicability of degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR (DOP-PCR) and a recently developed linker-adapter-mediated PCR (LA-PCR) for whole genome amplification for use in CGH, especially for difficult source material.
We comparatively analyzed DNA of variable quality derived from different cell/tissue types. Additionally, dilution experiments down to the DNA content of a single cell were performed. FISH and/or classical cytogenetic analyses were used as controls.
In the case of high quality DNA samples, both methods were equally suitable for CGH. When analyzing very small amounts of these DNA samples (equivalent to one or a few human diploid cells), DOP-PCR-CGH, but not LA-PCR-CGH, frequently produced false-positive signals (e.g., gains in 1p and 16p, and losses in chromosome 4q). In case of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, success rates by LA-PCR-CGH were significantly higher as compared to DOP-PCR-CGH. DNA of minor quality frequently could be analyzed correctly by LA-PCR-CGH, but was prone to give false-positive and/or false-negative results by DOP-PCR-CGH.
LA-PCR is superior to DOP-PCR for amplification of DNA for CGH analysis, especially in the case of very limited or partly degraded source material.

Download full-text


Available from: Leonilla Elbling, Nov 21, 2014
1 Follower
26 Reads
  • Source
    • "Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were performed as described previously [18] [19]. For DNA amplification, linker–adapter PCR was used as described [18]. For the detection of the MRP1 locus the BAC "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Triapine is an α-N-heterocyclic thiosemicarbazone with promising anticancer activity against hematologic malignancies but widely ineffective against solid tumor types in clinical trials. The anticancer activity of thiosemicarbazones can be dramatically increased by terminal dimethylation. KP1089 is a gallium compound containing two terminal dimethylated thiosemicarbazone ligands. To gain insights on the vulnerability of this highly active terminal dimethylated thiosemicarbazone to drug resistance mechanisms, a new cell model with acquired resistance against the lead compound KP1089 was established. Subsequent genomic analyses (arrayCGH and FISH) revealed amplification of the ABCC1 gene on double minute chromosomal DNA in KP1089-resistant cells as well as overexpression of ABCC1 and ABCG2 on the protein level. KP1089 was further confirmed as a substrate of ABCC1 and ABCG2 but not of ABCB1 using a panel of ABC transporter-overexpressing cell models as well as ABC transporter inhibitors. Moreover, glutathione depletion strongly enhanced KP1089 activity, although no glutathione conjugate formation by glutathione-S-transferase was observed. Thus, a co-transport of KP1089 together with glutathione is suggested. Finally, a panel of thiosemicarbazone derivatives was tested on the new KP1089-resistant cell line. Notably, KP1089-resistant cells were not cross-resistant against thiosemicarbazones lacking terminal dimethylation (e.g. Triapine) which are less active than KP1089. This suggests that terminal dimethylation of thiosemicarbazones - linked with distinctly enhanced anticancer activity - leads to altered resistance profiles compared to classical thiosemicarbazones making this compound class of interest for further (pre)clinical evaluation.
    Biochemical pharmacology 03/2012; 83(12):1623-33. DOI:10.1016/j.bcp.2012.03.004 · 5.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "About half a dozen approaches have been developed for random whole genome amplification upstream of SNP detection methods (e.g. Omniplex® technology [6], DOP-PCR [7,8], LA-PCR [9,10], PCR with universal linker [11] and T7 based linear amplification for genomic DNA [12]). Among them, WGA and Random Amplification (RA) based on random RT and random PCR are the most widespread techniques for the detection and identification using DNA microarrays. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Phi29 polymerase based amplification methods provides amplified DNA with minimal changes in sequence and relative abundance for many biomedical applications. RNA virus detection using microarrays, however, can present a challenge because phi29 DNA polymerase cannot amplify RNA nor small cDNA fragments (<2000 bases) obtained by reverse transcription of certain viral RNA genomes. Therefore, ligation of cDNA fragments is necessary prior phi29 polymerase based amplification. We adapted the QuantiTect Whole Transcriptome Kit (Qiagen) to our purposes and designated the method as Whole Transcriptome Amplification (WTA). WTA successfully amplified cDNA from a panel of RNA viruses representing the diversity of ribovirus genome sizes. We amplified a range of genome copy numbers from 15 to 4 x 10(7) using WTA, which yielded quantities of amplified DNA as high as 1.2 microg/microl or 10(10) target copies. The amplification factor varied between 10(9) and 10(6). We also demonstrated that co-amplification occurred when viral RNA was mixed with bacterial DNA. This is the first report in the scientific literature showing that a modified WGA (WTA) approach can be successfully applied to viral genomic RNA of all sizes. Amplifying viral RNA by WTA provides considerably better sensitivity and accuracy of detection compared to random RT-PCR.
    BMC Molecular Biology 10/2008; 9(1):77. DOI:10.1186/1471-2199-9-77 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "hybridisation (CGH), fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and CDD banding were performed as described previously (Pirker et al, 2004). For DNA amplification, linker – adapter PCR was used as described (Pirker et al, 2004). For the detection of the EGFR locus, the BAC clone RP11-339F13 supplied by Pieter De Jong (Oakland, CA, USA) was used. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glioblastoma multiforme is characterised by invasive growth and frequent recurrence. Here, we have analysed chromosomal changes in comparison to tumour cell aggressiveness and chemosensitivity of three cell lines established from a primary tumour and consecutive recurrences (BTL1 to BTL3) of a long-term surviving glioblastoma patient together with paraffin-embedded materials of five further cases with recurrent disease. Following surgery, the BTL patient progressed under irradiation/ lomustine but responded to temozolomide after re-operation to temozolomide. The primary tumour -derived BTL1 cells showed chromosomal imbalances typical of highly aggressive glioblastomas. Interestingly, BTL2 cells established from the first recurrence developed under therapy showed signs of enhanced chromosomal instability. In contrast, BTL3 cells from the second recurrence resembled a less aggressive subclone of the primary tumour. Although BTL2 cells exhibited a highly aggressive phenotype, BTL3 cells were characterised by reduced proliferative and migratory potential. Despite persistent methylation of the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter, BTL3 cells exhibited the highest temozolomide sensitivity. A comparable situation was found in two out of five glioblastoma patients, both characterised by enhanced survival time, who also relapsed after surgery/chemotherapy with less aggressive recurrences. Taken together, our data suggest that pretreated glioblastoma patients may relapse with highly chemosensitive tumours confirming the feasibility of temozolomide treatment even in case of repeated recurrence.Keywords: Recurrent glioblastoma, chemosensitivity, chromosomal instability, temozolomide, MGMT
    British Journal of Cancer 03/2007; 96(6):960-969. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603652 · 4.84 Impact Factor
Show more