PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization
Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) represents a powerful method for screening the entire genome of solid tumors for chromosomal imbalances. Particularly it enabled the molecular cytogenetic analysis of archival, formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissue. A well‐known dilemma, however, is...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2004-01-01
|
| Series: | Cellular Oncology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2004/847515 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832547420562522112 |
|---|---|
| author | Dirk Korinth Konrad Donhuijsen Ulrike Bockmühl Iver Petersen |
| author_facet | Dirk Korinth Konrad Donhuijsen Ulrike Bockmühl Iver Petersen |
| author_sort | Dirk Korinth |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) represents a powerful method for screening the entire genome of solid tumors for chromosomal imbalances. Particularly it enabled the molecular cytogenetic analysis of archival, formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissue. A well‐known dilemma, however, is the poor DNA quality of this material with fragment sizes below 1000 bp. Nick translation, the conventionally used enzymatic DNA labeling method in CGH, leads to even shorter fragments often below a critical limit for successful analysis. In this study we report the alternative application of non‐enzymatic, PHOTOPROBE® biotin labeling for conjugation of the hapten to the DNA prior to in situ hybridization and fluorescence detection. We analyzed 51 FFPE tumor samples mainly from the upper respiratory tract by both labeling methods. In 19 cases, both approaches were successful. The comparison of hybridized metaphases showed a distinct higher fluorescence signal of the PHOTOPROBE® samples sometimes with a discrete cytoplasm background which however did not interfere with specificity and sensitivity of the detected chromosomal imbalances. For further 32 cases characterized by an average DNA fragment size below 1000 bp, PHOTOPROBE® biotin was the only successful labeling technique thus offering a new option for CGH analysis of highly degraded DNA from archival material. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-325f487ae4364daa89bf52c8ceb2e8c9 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1570-5870 1875-8606 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2004-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cellular Oncology |
| spelling | doaj-art-325f487ae4364daa89bf52c8ceb2e8c92025-02-03T06:44:43ZengWileyCellular Oncology1570-58701875-86062004-01-01265-632933410.1155/2004/847515PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic HybridizationDirk Korinth0Konrad Donhuijsen1Ulrike Bockmühl2Iver Petersen3Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Charité, Berlin, GermanyInstitute of Pathology, Urban Hospital Braunschweig, GermanyClinic of Head and Neck Diseases, Hospital Fulda, GermanyInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Charité, Berlin, GermanyComparative genomic hybridization (CGH) represents a powerful method for screening the entire genome of solid tumors for chromosomal imbalances. Particularly it enabled the molecular cytogenetic analysis of archival, formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) tissue. A well‐known dilemma, however, is the poor DNA quality of this material with fragment sizes below 1000 bp. Nick translation, the conventionally used enzymatic DNA labeling method in CGH, leads to even shorter fragments often below a critical limit for successful analysis. In this study we report the alternative application of non‐enzymatic, PHOTOPROBE® biotin labeling for conjugation of the hapten to the DNA prior to in situ hybridization and fluorescence detection. We analyzed 51 FFPE tumor samples mainly from the upper respiratory tract by both labeling methods. In 19 cases, both approaches were successful. The comparison of hybridized metaphases showed a distinct higher fluorescence signal of the PHOTOPROBE® samples sometimes with a discrete cytoplasm background which however did not interfere with specificity and sensitivity of the detected chromosomal imbalances. For further 32 cases characterized by an average DNA fragment size below 1000 bp, PHOTOPROBE® biotin was the only successful labeling technique thus offering a new option for CGH analysis of highly degraded DNA from archival material.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2004/847515 |
| spellingShingle | Dirk Korinth Konrad Donhuijsen Ulrike Bockmühl Iver Petersen PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization Cellular Oncology |
| title | PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization |
| title_full | PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization |
| title_fullStr | PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization |
| title_full_unstemmed | PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization |
| title_short | PHOTOPROBER® Biotin: An Alternative Method for Labeling Archival DNA for Comparative Genomic Hybridization |
| title_sort | photoprober r biotin an alternative method for labeling archival dna for comparative genomic hybridization |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2004/847515 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dirkkorinth photoproberbiotinanalternativemethodforlabelingarchivaldnaforcomparativegenomichybridization AT konraddonhuijsen photoproberbiotinanalternativemethodforlabelingarchivaldnaforcomparativegenomichybridization AT ulrikebockmuhl photoproberbiotinanalternativemethodforlabelingarchivaldnaforcomparativegenomichybridization AT iverpetersen photoproberbiotinanalternativemethodforlabelingarchivaldnaforcomparativegenomichybridization |