Accuracy of an array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) technique in detecting DNA copy number aberrations: comparison with conventional CGH and loss of heterozygosity analysis in prostate cancer
Accuracy of an array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) technique in detecting DNA copy number aberrations: comparison with conventional CGH and loss of heterozygosity analysis in prostate cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2003.09.004
复制
发表时间：
2004-04-15
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Naito, K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yano, S;Matsuyama, H;Naito, K
虽然基因组DNA微阵列(阵列比较基因组杂交[CGH])技术是一种快速而强大的诊断工具，可以全面分析DNA拷贝数的详细染色体变化，但其准确性尚未得到很好的证明。为了阐明该技术的准确性，我们将283个特异基因点阵CGH应用于I-I临床前列腺癌，并将结果与比较基因组杂交(常规CGH)和微卫星DNA标记杂合性缺失(LOH)分析进行了比较。在DNA序列丢失方面，阵列CGH与常规CGH的总符合率为94.5%。当两种CGH技术的结果与LOH分析的结果进行比较时，阵列CGH的符合率显著高于常规CGH(93.4%vs.72.2%，P<；0.05)。综上所述，阵列CGH检测DNA序列丢失的准确性高于常规CGH。阵列CGH被证明是一种很有前途的工具，用于筛选与前列腺癌发生有关的未知基因。(C)2004 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
Although genomic DNA microarray (array comparative genomic hybridization [CGH]) technique is a rapid and powerful diagnostic tool for the comprehensive analysis of detailed chromosomal alterations of DNA copy numbers, its accuracy has not been well demonstrated. To clarify the accuracy of this technique, we applied array CGH spotted with 283 specific genes to I I clinical prostate cancers, and the results were compared with comparative genomic hybridization (conventional CGH) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis using microsatellite DNA markers. The overall rate of correspondence between array CGH and conventional CGH with respect to the loss of DNA sequences was 94.5%. When the results of both CGH techniques were compared with those of LOH analysis, the correspondence rate of array CGH was significantly higher than that of conventional CGH (93.4% vs. 72.2%, P < 0.05). In conclusion, the accuracy of array CGH was higher than that of conventional CGH in detecting losses of the DNA sequences. Array CGH is shown to be a promising tool for screening to identify unknown genes involved in tumorigenesis in prostate cancer. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.