Premium
Analyses of brain tumor cell lines confirm a simple model of relationships among fluorescence in situ hybridization, DNA index, and comparative genomic hybridization
Author(s) -
Mohapatra Gayatry,
Moore Dan H.,
Kim Dong H.,
Grewal Lovedeep,
Hyun William C.,
Waldman Frederic M.,
Pinkel Daniel,
Feuerstein Burt G.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
genes, chromosomes and cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.754
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1098-2264
pISSN - 1045-2257
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1098-2264(199712)20:4<311::aid-gcc1>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - in situ hybridization , comparative genomic hybridization , fluorescence in situ hybridization , in situ , index (typography) , dna , biology , computational biology , fluorescence , genetics , computer science , chemistry , genome , chromosome , physics , gene , gene expression , optics , organic chemistry , world wide web
Several techniques are commonly used for genetic analysis of interphase nuclei. Flow cytometry assays the distribution of DNA content in populations of nuclei stained with a DNA‐specific fluorochrome. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) quantifies the number of copies of a specific DNA sequence in single nuclei. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) assesses the relative copy number of DNA sequences throughout a test genome by comparing the signal intensities of test and reference DNA samples hybridized to a template of normal metaphase chromosomes. In principle, there are specific relationships among data obtained from these measurements, and combined measurements should provide a more comprehensive view of the sample that is analyzed. We applied these three techniques to nine brain tumor cell lines and find that a model of CGH that includes unsuppressed repeat sequences describes the data well. We estimate that up to 35% of the fluorescence intensity in well‐blocked CGH preparations may not represent unique sequences. Taking these factors into account, our results are, in general, mutually consistent, and highlight issues critical for interpreting CGH preparations. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 20:311‐319, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.