Cargando…
FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA
AIMS: To check the usefulness of a standardized protocol of PTEN FISH in 31 endometrial carcinomas (ECs) in comparison with SNP array (SNPA), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and immunohistochemistry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis showed two...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BlackWell Publishing Ltd
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4282383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25353038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12396 |
_version_ | 1782351126744530944 |
---|---|
author | Maiques, Oscar Cuevas, Dolors García Dios, Diego Andrés Coenegrachts, Lieve Santacana, Maria Velasco, Ana Romero, Marta Gatius, Sónia Lambrechts, Diether Müller, Sven Pedersen, Hans Christian Dolcet, Xavier Amant, Frederic Matias-Guiu, Xavier |
author_facet | Maiques, Oscar Cuevas, Dolors García Dios, Diego Andrés Coenegrachts, Lieve Santacana, Maria Velasco, Ana Romero, Marta Gatius, Sónia Lambrechts, Diether Müller, Sven Pedersen, Hans Christian Dolcet, Xavier Amant, Frederic Matias-Guiu, Xavier |
author_sort | Maiques, Oscar |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: To check the usefulness of a standardized protocol of PTEN FISH in 31 endometrial carcinomas (ECs) in comparison with SNP array (SNPA), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and immunohistochemistry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis showed two PTEN copies in 17 cases, three copies in nine cases, hemizygous deletion in two cases, and diverse cell populations with different PTEN copy number in three cases. A good correlation was seen between FISH and SNPA, particularly in cases with three copies. FISH identified two cases with entire deletion of chromosome 10, but did not identify a focal deletion of PTEN. Five cases with PTEN deletion and duplication of the second allele by SNPA were interpreted as normal by FISH. Concordance between FISH and MLPA was seen in 15 cases with two copies, and in two cases with PTEN deletion. Six cases were interpreted as amplified by MLPA, but showed polyploidy by FISH. FISH was superior to SNPA and MLPA in assessing the tumours with diverse cell populations with different PTEN copies. CONCLUSIONS: The results show good concordance between FISH, SNPA and MLPA. SNPA was superior in tumours with deletion of one copy and duplication of the second allele. FISH was superior in assessing tumour heterogeneity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4282383 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BlackWell Publishing Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42823832015-01-15 FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA Maiques, Oscar Cuevas, Dolors García Dios, Diego Andrés Coenegrachts, Lieve Santacana, Maria Velasco, Ana Romero, Marta Gatius, Sónia Lambrechts, Diether Müller, Sven Pedersen, Hans Christian Dolcet, Xavier Amant, Frederic Matias-Guiu, Xavier Histopathology Original Articles AIMS: To check the usefulness of a standardized protocol of PTEN FISH in 31 endometrial carcinomas (ECs) in comparison with SNP array (SNPA), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and immunohistochemistry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fluorescence in-situ hybridization analysis showed two PTEN copies in 17 cases, three copies in nine cases, hemizygous deletion in two cases, and diverse cell populations with different PTEN copy number in three cases. A good correlation was seen between FISH and SNPA, particularly in cases with three copies. FISH identified two cases with entire deletion of chromosome 10, but did not identify a focal deletion of PTEN. Five cases with PTEN deletion and duplication of the second allele by SNPA were interpreted as normal by FISH. Concordance between FISH and MLPA was seen in 15 cases with two copies, and in two cases with PTEN deletion. Six cases were interpreted as amplified by MLPA, but showed polyploidy by FISH. FISH was superior to SNPA and MLPA in assessing the tumours with diverse cell populations with different PTEN copies. CONCLUSIONS: The results show good concordance between FISH, SNPA and MLPA. SNPA was superior in tumours with deletion of one copy and duplication of the second allele. FISH was superior in assessing tumour heterogeneity. BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2014-09 2014-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4282383/ /pubmed/25353038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12396 Text en © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Maiques, Oscar Cuevas, Dolors García Dios, Diego Andrés Coenegrachts, Lieve Santacana, Maria Velasco, Ana Romero, Marta Gatius, Sónia Lambrechts, Diether Müller, Sven Pedersen, Hans Christian Dolcet, Xavier Amant, Frederic Matias-Guiu, Xavier FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title | FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title_full | FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title_fullStr | FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title_full_unstemmed | FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title_short | FISH analysis of PTEN in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with SNP arrays and MLPA |
title_sort | fish analysis of pten in endometrial carcinoma. comparison with snp arrays and mlpa |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4282383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25353038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12396 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT maiquesoscar fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT cuevasdolors fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT garciadiosdiegoandres fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT coenegrachtslieve fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT santacanamaria fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT velascoana fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT romeromarta fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT gatiussonia fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT lambrechtsdiether fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT mullersven fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT pedersenhanschristian fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT dolcetxavier fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT amantfrederic fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa AT matiasguiuxavier fishanalysisofpteninendometrialcarcinomacomparisonwithsnparraysandmlpa |