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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |