Comparative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization microarray technologies: report of a workshop sponsored by the Wellcome Trust.

BACKGROUND Array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), although providing much higher resolution compared with conventional CGH, has not yet become a widely applied method for the analysis of genomic gains and losses. METHODS In January 2002, the Wellcome Trust sponsored a workshop where many of the laboratories developing this technology met to compare different methodologies for array-CGH. Fourteen groups participated, comprising 11 from Europe and 3 from the United States. To facilitate objective analysis, each laboratory constructed arrays using the same anonymous clones and performed a series of test hybridizations using identical genomic DNAs. RESULTS A figure of merit (FM) was developed to summarize entire collections of data from each laboratory in a single measurement. The FMs consistently showed that a few groups produced quantitative array hybridization data of high quality, whereas a majority achieved a lower standard. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the workshop were that polymerase chain reaction-based methods for the amplification of large insert clones for arraying were effective for array-CGH. It was also concluded that hybridizations performed under coverslips or in automated hybridization apparatus were less effective than hybridizations performed in simple wells with gentle rocking. A common experience by the participants was the batch-to-batch variability of commercial Cot1 preparations in their ability to suppress hybridization to repeat sequences. (Supplementary material for this article can be found in the online issue, which is available at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0196-4763/suppmat/49_2/v49.43.html or at http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/Cytogenetics/Publications/Cytometry Sept 2002/Supplemental.pdf.)

[1]  W. Kuo,et al.  High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays , 1998, Nature Genetics.

[2]  Han G Brunner,et al.  High-throughput analysis of subtelomeric chromosome rearrangements by use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization. , 2002, American journal of human genetics.

[3]  P. Lichter,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization: uses and limitations. , 2000, Seminars in hematology.

[4]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Assembly of microarrays for genome-wide measurement of DNA copy number , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[5]  N. Carter,et al.  Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. , 1992, Genomics.

[6]  F. Kokocinski,et al.  Automated Screening for Genomic Imbalances using Matrix-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization , 2002, Laboratory Investigation.

[7]  D Pinkel,et al.  High resolution deletion analysis of constitutional DNA from neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) patients using microarray-CGH. , 2001, Human molecular genetics.

[8]  H. Döhner,et al.  Matrix‐based comparative genomic hybridization: Biochips to screen for genomic imbalances , 1997, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[9]  O. Kallioniemi,et al.  From chromosomal alterations to target genes for therapy: integrating cytogenetic and functional genomic views of the breast cancer genome. , 2001, Seminars in cancer biology.

[10]  C. Lundsteen,et al.  Deletions below 10 megabasepairs are detected in comparative genomic hybridization by standard reference intervals , 1999, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[11]  Y. Chen,et al.  Detecting activation of ribosomal protein S6 kinase by complementary DNA and tissue microarray analysis. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization for the differential diagnosis of renal cell cancer. , 2002, Cancer research.

[13]  D Rutovitz,et al.  Computer image analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. , 1995, Cytometry.

[14]  Joe W. Gray,et al.  Quantitative analysis of chromosomal CGH in human breast tumors associates copy number abnormalities with p53 status and patient survival , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy number variation in breast cancer using DNA microarrays , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[16]  Kylie L. Gorringe,et al.  Degenerate oligonucleotide primed-polymerase chain reaction-based array comparative genomic hybridization for extensive amplicon profiling of breast cancers : a new approach for the molecular analysis of paraffin-embedded cancer tissue. , 2001, The American journal of pathology.

[17]  Joe W. Gray,et al.  Genome scanning with array CGH delineates regional alterations in mouse islet carcinomas , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[18]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy-number changes using cDNA microarrays , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[19]  W. Kuo,et al.  Quantitative mapping of amplicon structure by array CGH identifies CYP24 as a candidate oncogene , 2000, Nature Genetics.