Custom Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization: the Importance of DNA Quality, an Expert Eye, and Variant Validation

The presence of false positive and false negative results in the Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) design is poorly addressed in literature reports. We took advantage of a custom aCGH recently carried out to analyze its design performance, the use of several Agilent aberrations detection algorithms, and the presence of false results. Our study provides a confirmation that the high density design does not generate more noise than standard designs and, might reach a good resolution. We noticed a not negligible presence of false negative and false positive results in the imbalances call performed by the Agilent software. The Aberration Detection Method 2 (ADM-2) algorithm with a threshold of 6 performed quite well, and the array design proved to be reliable, provided that some additional filters are applied, such as considering only intervals with average absolute log2ratio above 0.3. We also propose an additional filter that takes into account the proportion of probes with log2ratio exceeding suggestive values for gain or loss. In addition, the quality of samples was confirmed to be a crucial parameter. Finally, this work raises the importance of evaluating the samples profiles by eye and the necessity of validating the imbalances detected.

[1]  S. Thibodeau,et al.  Experimental Designs for Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization Technology , 2013, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[2]  B. Torchia,et al.  Comparative analysis of copy number detection by whole-genome BAC and oligonucleotide array CGH , 2010, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[3]  Carolyn J. Brown,et al.  A comprehensive analysis of common copy-number variations in the human genome. , 2007, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  Chad A Shaw,et al.  Development and validation of a CGH microarray for clinical cytogenetic diagnosis , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  J. Grifo,et al.  Discrepant diagnosis rate of array comparative genomic hybridization in thawed euploid blastocysts , 2016, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[6]  L. Shaffer,et al.  The identification of microdeletion syndromes and other chromosome abnormalities: Cytogenetic methods of the past, new technologies for the future , 2007, American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics.

[7]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  A GC-wave correction algorithm that improves the analytical performance of aCGH. , 2012, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[8]  P. Stankiewicz,et al.  Detection of clinically relevant exonic copy‐number changes by array CGH , 2010, Human mutation.

[9]  William W. Cohen,et al.  Identification of familial and de novo microduplications of 22q11.21-q11.23 distal to the 22q11.21 microdeletion syndrome region. , 2009, Human molecular genetics.

[10]  M. Hurles,et al.  A Genome-Wide Assessment of the Role of Untagged Copy Number Variants in Type 1 Diabetes , 2014, PLoS genetics.

[11]  Lora J. H. Bean,et al.  Targeted comparative genomic hybridization array for the detection of single- and multiexon gene deletions and duplications , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[12]  Yen-Yi Ho,et al.  Copy Number Variants in Candidate Genes Are Genetic Modifiers of Hirschsprung Disease , 2011, PloS one.

[13]  Hongyu Zhao,et al.  Analytical and clinical validity of whole‐genome oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization for pediatric patients with mental retardation and developmental delay , 2008, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[14]  U. Surti,et al.  Discovery of a previously unrecognized microdeletion syndrome of 16p11.2–p12.2 , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[15]  S. Friend,et al.  Impact of centralization on aCGH-based genomic profiles for precision medicine in oncology. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[16]  Xin Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of copy number variation detection for a SNP array platform , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  L. Feuk,et al.  Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome , 2004, Nature Genetics.

[18]  L. Shaffer,et al.  Effects of ozone exposure during microarray posthybridization washes and scanning. , 2009, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[19]  P. Tonellato,et al.  Ultradense array CGH and discovery of micro-copy number alterations and gene fusions in the cancer genome. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.

[20]  Lars Feuk,et al.  The Database of Genomic Variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  Andrew J Sharp,et al.  Discovery of previously unidentified genomic disorders from the duplication architecture of the human genome , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[22]  D. Bittel,et al.  Validation of the Agilent 244K oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization platform for clinical cytogenetic diagnosis. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[23]  Manuel Corpas,et al.  DECIPHER: Database of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans Using Ensembl Resources. , 2009, American journal of human genetics.

[24]  F. Cavalcanti,et al.  A customized high-resolution array-comparative genomic hybridization to explore copy number variations in Parkinson’s disease , 2016, neurogenetics.

[25]  A. Tsalenko,et al.  The fine-scale and complex architecture of human copy-number variation. , 2008, American journal of human genetics.

[26]  S. Cheung,et al.  Development of a focused oligonucleotide-array comparative genomic hybridization chip for clinical diagnosis of genomic imbalance. , 2007, Clinical chemistry.

[27]  N. Carter.  Methods and strategies for analyzing copy number variation using DNA microarrays , 2007, Nature Genetics.

[28]  Philippe Froguel,et al.  Array CGH analysis of copy number variation identifies 1284 new genes variant in healthy white males: implications for association studies of complex diseases. , 2007, Human molecular genetics.

[29]  L. Siggberg,et al.  High-resolution SNP array analysis of patients with developmental disorder and normal array CGH results , 2012, BMC Medical Genetics.

[30]  E. Thorland,et al.  Evaluation of a commercially available focused aCGH platform for the detection of constitutional chromosome anomalies , 2007, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[31]  Tom H. Pringle,et al.  The human genome browser at UCSC. , 2002, Genome research.

[32]  P. Stankiewicz,et al.  Combined array CGH plus SNP genome analyses in a single assay for optimized clinical testing , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[33]  Chad A Shaw,et al.  Development of a comparative genomic hybridization microarray and demonstration of its utility with 25 well-characterized 1p36 deletions. , 2003, Human molecular genetics.

[34]  D. Conrad,et al.  Global variation in copy number in the human genome , 2006, Nature.

[35]  B. Carvalho,et al.  Combined Analysis of SNP Array Data Identifies Novel CNV Candidates and Pathways in Ependymoma and Mesothelioma , 2015, BioMed research international.

[36]  L. Rienzi,et al.  Comparison of array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative real-time PCR-based aneuploidy screening of blastocyst biopsies , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[37]  Barbara Klink,et al.  Ready to clone: CNV detection and breakpoint fine-mapping in breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes by high-resolution array CGH , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[38]  S. Pastorino,et al.  High-density array-CGH with targeted NGS unmask multiple noncontiguous minute deletions on chromosome 3p21 in mesothelioma , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Peining Li,et al.  Spectrum of Cytogenomic Abnormalities Revealed by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization on Products of Conception Culture Failure and Normal Karyotype Samples. , 2016, Journal of genetics and genomics = Yi chuan xue bao.