Detection of chromosomal abnormalities by comparative genomic hybridization

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 171-177

  Lapierre, Jean Michel ^a   Tachdjian, Gérard ^b  

^a HÔPITAL NECKER ENFANTS MALADES   (France)

^b HÔPITAL ANTOINE BÉCLÈRE   (France)

Author keywords

Chromosome; Comparative genomic hybridization; Cytogenetics; DNA

Indexed keywords

GENOMIC DNA;

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CHROMOSOMAL LOCALIZATION; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; DNA SEQUENCE; GENE MAPPING; HUMAN; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 15944382301     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000162188.99219.04     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992; 258: 818-821.
2. Lillington DM, Kingston JE, Coen PG, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of 49 primary retinoblastoma tumors identifies chromosomal regions associated with histopathology, progression, and patient outcome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003; 36:121-128.
3. Weiss MM, Kuipers EJ, Meuwissen SG, et al. Comparative genomic hybridisation as a supportive tool in diagnostic pathology. J Clin Pathol 2003; 56:522-527.
4. Teixeira MR, Ribeiro FR, Eknaes M, et al. Genomic analysis of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained via ultrasound-guided needle biopsy may be of use in preoperative decision-making. Cancer 2004; 101:1786-1793.
5. Melendez B, Diaz-Uriarte R, Cuadros M, et al. Gene expression analysis of chromosomal regions with gain or loss of genetic material detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2004; 41:353-365. This cancer study describes gene expression in gained or lost chromosomal regions detected by comparative genomic hybridization.
6. Costa D, Queralt R, Aymerich M, et al. High levels of chromosomal imbalances in typical and small-cell variants of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003; 147:36-43.
7. Terracciano LM, Bernasconi B, Ruck P, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of hepatoblastoma reveals high frequency of X-chromosome gains and similarities between epithelial and stromal components. Hum Pathol 2003; 34:864-871.
8. Benzaken B, Lapierre JM, Siffroi JP, et al. Identification and characterization of a de novo partial trisomy 10p by comparative genomic hybridization. Clin Genet 1998; 54:334-340.
9. Chen CK, Chang SD, Chen YJ, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization-assisted prenatal diagnosis of a de novo inverted duplication of chromosome 10q. A case report. J Reprod Med 2003; 48:391-394.
10. Shanske AL, Edelmann L, Kardon NB, et al. Detection of an interstitial deletion of 2q21-22 by high resolution comparative genomic hybridization in a child with multiple congenital anomalies and an apparent balanced translocation. Am J Med Genet 2004; 131A:29-35.
11. Dent J, Hall GD, Wilkinson N, et al. Cytogenetic alterations in ovarian clear cell carcinoma detected by comparative genomic hybridisation. Br J Cancer 2003; 88:1578-1583.
12. Terracciano L, Tornillo L. Cytogenetic alterations in liver cell tumors as detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Pathologica 2003; 95: 71-82.
13. Jones C, Ford E, Gillett C, et al. Molecular cytogenetic identification of subgroups of grade III invasive ductal breast carcinomas with different clinical outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:5988-5997.
14. Wreesmann VB, Shi W, Thaler HT, et al. Identification of novel prognosticators of outcome in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:3965-3972.
15. Ahmed M, Kim K, Haddad B, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization studies in hydatiform moles and choriocarcinoma: amplification of 7q21-q31 and loss of 8p12-p21. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2000; 116:10-15.
16. Hostein I, Coindre JM, Derre J, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization study of paraffin-embedded dedifferentiated liposarcoma fixed with Holland Bouin's fluid. Diagn Mol Pathol 2003; 12:166-173.
17. Zielenska M, Marrano P, Thorner P, et al. High-resolution cDNA microarray CGH mapping of genomic imbalances in osteosarcoma using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Cytogenet Genome Res 2004; 107:77-82.
18. Casas S, Aventin A, Fuentes F, et al. Genetic diagnosis by comparative genomic hybridization in adult de novo acute myelocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2004; 153:16-25.
19. Junker K, Weirich G, Amin MB, et al. Genetic subtyping of renal cell carcinoma by comparative genomic hybridization. Recent Results Cancer Res 2003; 162:169-175.
20. Ottesen AM, Skakkebaek NE, Lundsteen C, et al. High-resolution comparative genomic hybridization detects extra chromosome arm 12p material in most cases of carcinoma in situ adjacent to overt germ cell tumors, but not before the invasive tumor development. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003; 38: 117-125.
21. Ottesen AM, Larsen J, Gerdes T, et al. Cytogenetic investigation of testicular carcinoma in situ and early seminoma by high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization analysis of subpopulations flow sorted according to DNA content. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2004; 149:89-97.
22. Gribble SM, Reid AG, Roberts I, et al. Genomic imbalances in CML blast crisis; 8q24.12-q24.13 segment identified as a common region of overrepresentation. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003; 37:346-358.
23. Vajdic CM, Hutchins AM, Kricker A, et al. Chromosomal gains and losses in ocular melanoma detected by comparative genomic hybridization in an Australian population-based study. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003; 144: 12-17.
24. Hu J, Kharma V, Jones MW, Surti U. Comparative study of primary and recurrent ovarian serous carcinomas: comparative genomic hybridization analysis with a potential application for prognosis. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 89:369-375.
25. Peng DF, Sugihara H, Mukaisho K, et al. Alterations of chromosomal copy number during progression of diffuse-type gastric carcinomas: metaphase- and array-based comparative genomic hybridization analyses of multiple samples from individual tumours. J Pathol 2003; 201:439-450.
26. Shiomi H, Sugihara H, Kamitani S, et al. Cytogenetic heterogeneity and progression of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003; 147:50-61.
27. Narayan G, Pulido HA, Koul S, et al. Genetic analysis identifies putative tumor suppressor sites at 2q35-q36.1 and 2q36.3-q37.1 involved in cervical cancer progression. Oncogene 2003; 22:3489-3499.
28. Okamoto H, Yasui K, Zhao C, et al. PTK2 and EIF3S3 genes may be amplification targets at 8q23-q24 and are associated with large hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatology 2003; 38:1242-1249.
29. Janssen EA, Baak JP, Guervos MA, et al. In lymph node-negative invasive breast carcinomas, specific chromosomal aberrations are strongly associated with high mitotic activity and predict outcome more accurately than grade, tumour diameter, and oestrogen receptor. J Pathol 2003; 201: 555-561.
30. Noguchi T, Kimura Y, Takeno S, et al. Chromosomal imbalance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: 3q gain correlates with tumor progression but not prognostic significance. Oncol Rep 2003; 10:1393-1400.
31. Papa D, Li SA, Li JJ. Comparative genomic hybridization of estrogen-induced ectopic uterine-like stem cell neoplasms in the hamster kidney: nonrandom chromosomal alterations. Mol Carcinog 2003; 38:97-105.
32. Kristensen TD, Wesenberg F, Jonsson OG, et al. High-resolution comparative genomic hybridisation yields a high detection rate of chromosomal aberrations in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Eur J Haematol 2003; 70:363-372.
33. Joos S, Bergerheim US, Pan Y, et al. Mapping of chromosomal gains and losses in prostate cancer by comparative genomic hybridization. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1995; 14:267-276.
34. Hassold T, Hunt P. To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2:280-291.
35. Shaffer LG, Lupski JR. Molecular mechanisms for constitutional chromosomal rearrangements in humans. Ann Rev Genet 2000; 34:297-329.
36. Budarf GL, Emanuel BS. Progress in the autosomal segmental aneusomy syndromes (SASs): single or multi-locus disorders? Hum Mol Genet 1997; 6:1657-1665.
37. Veltman JA, Schoenmakers EF, Eussen BH, et al. High-throughput analysis of subtelomeric chromosome rearrangements by use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Am J Hum Genet 2002; 70:1269-1276.
38. Xu J, Chen Z. Advances in molecular cytogenetics for the evaluation of mental retardation. Am J Med Genet 2003; 117C:15-24.
39. Popp S, Jauch A, Schindler D, et al. A strategy for the characterization of minute chromosome rearrangements using multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization with chromosome-specific DNA libraries and YAC clones. Hum Genet 1993; 92:527-532.
40. Meltzer PS, Guan XY, Burgess A, Trent JM. Rapid generation of region specific probes by chromosome microdissection and their application. Nat Genet 1992; 1:24-28.
41. Knight SJL, Regan R, Nicod A, et al. Subtle chromosomal rearrangements in children with unexplained mental retardation. Lancet 1999; 354:1676-1681.
42. Cheung J, Estivill X, Khaja R, et al. Genome-wide detection of segmental duplications and potential assembly errors in the human genome sequence. Genome Biol 2003; 4:25.
43. Speicher MR, Ballard SG, Ward DC. Karyotyping human chromosomes by combinatorial multi-fluor FISH. Nat Genet 1996; 12:368-375.
44. Schröck E, du Manoir S, Veldman T, et al. Multicolor spectral karyotyping of human chromosomes. Science 1996; 273:494-497.
45. Kirchhoff M, Rose H, Maahr J, et al. High resolution comparative genomic hybridisation analysis reveals imbalances in dyschromosomal patients with normal or apparently balanced conventional karyotypes. Eur J Hum Genet 2000; 8:661-668.
46. Kirchhoff M, Pedersen S, Kjeldsen E, et al. Prospective study comparing HR-CGH and subtelomeric FISH for investigation of individuals with mental retardation and dysmorphic features and an update of a study using only HR-CGH. Am J Med Genet 2004; 127A:111-117.
47. Lapierre JM, Cacheux V, Da Silva F, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization: technical development and cytogenetic aspects for routine use in clinical laboratories. Ann Genet 1998; 41:56-62.
48. Lebo R, Flandermeyer R, Diukman R, et al. Prenatal diagnosis with repetitive in situ hybridization probes. Am J Med Genet 1992; 43:848-854.
49. Lapierre JM, Cacheux V, Da Silva F, et al. Comparison of comparative genomic hybridization with conventional karyotype and classical fluorescence in situ hybridization for prenatal and postnatal diagnosis of unbalanced chromosome abnormalities. Ann Genet 1998; 41:133-140.
50. Lapierre JM, Cacheux V, Luton D, et al. Analysis of uncultured amniocytes by comparative genomic hybridization: a prospective prenatal study. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20:123-131.
51. Sanlaville D, Baumann C, Lapierre JM, et al. De novo inverted duplication 9p21 pter involving telomeric sequences. Am J Med Genet 1999; 83:125-131.
52. Tabet AC, Aboura A, Dauge MC, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of trophoblast by comparative genomic hybridization in embryo-fetal development anomalies. Prenat Diagn 2001; 21:613-618.
53. Tan YQ, Hu L, Lin G, et al. Genetic changes in human fetuses from spontaneous abortion after in vitro fertilization detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Biol Reprod 2004; 70:495-499.
54. Wilton L, Voullaire L, Sargeant P, et al. Preimplantation aneuploidy screening using comparative genomic hybridization or fluorescence in situ hybridization of embryos from patients with recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:860-868.
55. Gutierrez-Mateo C, Wells D, Benet J, et al. Reliability of comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosome abnormalities in first polar bodies and metaphase II oocytes. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2118-2125.
56. Hu DG, Webb G, Hussey N. Aneuploidy detection in single cells using DNA array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10:283-289. This article describes the technical development of comparative genomic hybridization for a rapid analysis of single cells.
57. Hellani A, Coskun S, Benkhalifa M, et al. Multiple displacement amplification on single cell and possible PGD applications. Mol Hum Reprod 2004; 10:847-852.
58. Veltman IM, Veltman JA, Arkesteijn G, et al. Chromosomal breakpoint mapping by arrayCGH using flow-sorted chromosomes. Biotechniques 2003; 35:1066-1070.
59. Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, Watson SK, et al. A tiling resolution DNA microarray with complete coverage of the human genome. Nat Genet 2004; 36:299-303.
60. Lapierre JM, Sanlaville D, Kang J, et al. A preliminary study to assess the value of the DNA chips SpectralChip to detect subtle constitutional chromosome imbalances. Ann Biol Clin 2004; 62:203-212.
61. Schoumans J, Anderlid BM, Blennow E, et al. The performance of CGH array for the detection of cryptic constitutional chromosome imbalances. J Med Genet 2004; 41:198-202.
62. Shaw-Smith C, Redon R, Rickman L, et al. Microarray based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) detects submicroscopic chromosomal deletions and duplications in patients with learning disability/mental retardation and dysmorphic features. J Med Genet 2004; 41:241-248. This article demonstrates the power of array-based comparative genomic hybridization for genome-wide screening of chromosomal abnormalities in clinical genetics. 179-183