Cargando…

Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer

Background: Promoter hypermethylation has emerged as a promising cancer biomarker. Currently, a large variety of quantitative and non-quantitative techniques is used to measure methylation in clinical specimens. Here we directly compared three commonly used methylation assays and assessed the influe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M., Pan, Xiaojuan, van der Wall, Elsken, van Diest, Paul J., Vooijs, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978321
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ACP-CLO-2010-0542
_version_ 1782395240201584640
author Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M.
Pan, Xiaojuan
van der Wall, Elsken
van Diest, Paul J.
Vooijs, Marc
author_facet Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M.
Pan, Xiaojuan
van der Wall, Elsken
van Diest, Paul J.
Vooijs, Marc
author_sort Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M.
collection PubMed
description Background: Promoter hypermethylation has emerged as a promising cancer biomarker. Currently, a large variety of quantitative and non-quantitative techniques is used to measure methylation in clinical specimens. Here we directly compared three commonly used methylation assays and assessed the influence of tissue fixation, target sequence location and the amount of DNA on their performance. Methods: We used Methylation-Specific PCR (MSP), Quantitative Multiplex MSP (QM-MSP) and Methylation-Specific Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MS-MLPA) to compare methylation of CCND2, SCGB3A1, RARB and RASSF1 on DNA from 40 breast carcinomas. Results: A comparison between MSP and QM-MSP on the same samples showed a high discrepancy: 20% of tumors that showed no methylation in MSP gave >10% methylation in QM-MSP. In contrast, QM-MSP correlated strongly with MS-MLPA when targeting the same sequence in DNA from paraffin embedded as well as fresh frozen tissue. This correlation declined when target sequences were non-overlapping. In titration experiments, MSP and MS-MLPA performed robust with 10 ng of DNA, while QM-MSP was at least ten-fold more sensitive. Conclusion: Despite the difference in molecular basis, QM-MSP and MS-MLPA showed moderate to strong correlations. In contrast, there was a poor concordance between either of these techniques and non-quantitative MSP. For biological samples with scarce DNA, QM-MSP is the method of choice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4605677
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46056772016-06-05 Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M. Pan, Xiaojuan van der Wall, Elsken van Diest, Paul J. Vooijs, Marc Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) Other Background: Promoter hypermethylation has emerged as a promising cancer biomarker. Currently, a large variety of quantitative and non-quantitative techniques is used to measure methylation in clinical specimens. Here we directly compared three commonly used methylation assays and assessed the influence of tissue fixation, target sequence location and the amount of DNA on their performance. Methods: We used Methylation-Specific PCR (MSP), Quantitative Multiplex MSP (QM-MSP) and Methylation-Specific Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MS-MLPA) to compare methylation of CCND2, SCGB3A1, RARB and RASSF1 on DNA from 40 breast carcinomas. Results: A comparison between MSP and QM-MSP on the same samples showed a high discrepancy: 20% of tumors that showed no methylation in MSP gave >10% methylation in QM-MSP. In contrast, QM-MSP correlated strongly with MS-MLPA when targeting the same sequence in DNA from paraffin embedded as well as fresh frozen tissue. This correlation declined when target sequences were non-overlapping. In titration experiments, MSP and MS-MLPA performed robust with 10 ng of DNA, while QM-MSP was at least ten-fold more sensitive. Conclusion: Despite the difference in molecular basis, QM-MSP and MS-MLPA showed moderate to strong correlations. In contrast, there was a poor concordance between either of these techniques and non-quantitative MSP. For biological samples with scarce DNA, QM-MSP is the method of choice. IOS Press 2010 2010-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4605677/ /pubmed/20978321 http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ACP-CLO-2010-0542 Text en Copyright © 2010 Hindawi Publishing Corporation and the authors.
spellingShingle Other
Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P. M.
Pan, Xiaojuan
van der Wall, Elsken
van Diest, Paul J.
Vooijs, Marc
Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title_full Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title_short Comparison of Different Promoter Methylation Assays in Breast Cancer
title_sort comparison of different promoter methylation assays in breast cancer
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20978321
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ACP-CLO-2010-0542
work_keys_str_mv AT suijkerbuijkkarijnpm comparisonofdifferentpromotermethylationassaysinbreastcancer
AT panxiaojuan comparisonofdifferentpromotermethylationassaysinbreastcancer
AT vanderwallelsken comparisonofdifferentpromotermethylationassaysinbreastcancer
AT vandiestpaulj comparisonofdifferentpromotermethylationassaysinbreastcancer
AT vooijsmarc comparisonofdifferentpromotermethylationassaysinbreastcancer