DNA profiling by arrayCGH in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes (original) (raw)
Article navigation
Case Reports| November 22 2007
Molecular Cytogenetics Group, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Madrid (Spain)
Search for other works by this author on:
Molecular Cytogenetics Group, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Madrid (Spain)
Search for other works by this author on:
Molecular Cytogenetics Group, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO), Madrid (Spain)
Search for other works by this author on:
Cytogenet Genome Res (2007) 118 (2-4): 304–309.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) represent two distinct but related myeloid haematological neoplasms. At diagnosis, a substantial proportion of cases show cytogenetic and molecular genetic markers whose range of specificity is highly variable. Most specific reciprocal translocations, as t(8;21)(q21;q21) or t(15;17)(q22;q21), have been extensively studied and are currently introduced in clinical diagnosis. Two other major groups remain to be better characterized at the genetic and genomic level: cases with normal karyotype and cases with complex aberrations. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) performed on chromosomes was the first approach taken and nearly 300 cases studied by this technique have already been reported. Array based CGH has also been applied to a smaller number of cases. Both types of genomic studies have confirmed that recurrent genomic losses and gains can almost exclusively be found in cases with complex karyotype. In most cases with normal karyotype (as well as in others with single chromosome aberrations as trisomy 8), arrayCGH has been able to unveil small DNA copy number changes whose recurrence is very low. Recently, single- nucleotide-polymorphism based arrays have been used in AML showing that loss of heterozygosity (LOH) is a common feature in normal karyotype leukemia.
References
Alvarez S, Cigudosa JC: Gains, losses and complex karyotypes in myeloid disorders: A light at the end of the tunnel. Hematol Oncol 23:18–25 (2005).
Alvarez S, MacGrogan D, Calasanz MJ, Nimer SD, Jhanwar SC: Frequent gain of chromosome 19 in megakaryoblastic leukemias detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 32:285–293 (2001).
Babicz M, Kowalczyk JR, Winnicka D, Gaworczyk A, Lejman M, et al: The effectiveness of high-resolution-comparative genomic hybridization in detecting the most common chromosomal abnormalities in pediatric myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 158:49–54 (2005).
Bentz M, Dohner H, Huck K, Schutz B, Ganser A, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization in the investigation of myeloid leukemias. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 12:193–200 (1995).
Bullinger L, Valk PJ: Gene expression profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 23:6296–6305 (2005).
Casas S, Aventin A, Fuentes F, Vallespi T, Granada I, et al: Genetic diagnosis by comparative genomic hybridization in adult de novo acute myelocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 153:16–25 (2004).
Castuma MV, Rao PH, Acevedo SH, Larripa IB: Comparative genomic hybridization study of de novo myeloid neoplasia. Acta Haematol 104:25–30 (2000).
Dalley CD, Neat MJ, Foot NJ, Burridge M, Byrne L, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization and multiplex-fluorescence in situ hybridization: An appraisal in elderly patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. Hematol J 3:290–298 (2002).
Dohner K, Schlenk RF, Habdank M, Scholl C, Rucker FG, et al: Mutant nucleophosmin (NPM1) predicts favorable prognosis in younger adults with acute myeloid leukemia and normal cytogenetics: Interaction with other gene mutations. Blood 106:3740–3746 (2005).
El-Rifai W, Elonen E, Larramendy M, Ruutu T, Knuutila S: Chromosomal breakpoints and changes in DNA copy number in refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 11:958–963 (1997).
Falini B, Mecucci C, Tiacci E, Alcalay M, Rosati R, et al: Cytoplasmic nucleophosmin in acute myelogenous leukemia with a normal karyotype. N Engl J Med 352:254–266 (2005).
Fiegler H, Carr P, Douglas EJ, Burford DC, Hunt S, et al: DNA microarrays for comparative genomic hybridization based on DOP-PCR amplification of BAC and PAC clones. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 36:361–374 (2003).
Fitzgibbon J, Smith LL, Raghavan M, Smith ML, Debernardi S, et al: Association between acquired uniparental disomy and homozygous gene mutation in acute myeloid leukemias. Cancer Res 65:9152–9154 (2005).
Gebhart E: Genomic imbalances in human leukemia and lymphoma detected by comparative genomic hybridization (review). Int J Oncol 27:593–606 (2005).
Gebhart E, Verdorfer I, Saul W, Trautmann U, Brecevic L: Delimiting the use of comparative genomic hybridization in human myeloid neoplastic disorders. Int J Oncol 16:1099–1105 (2000).
Gorletta TA, Gasparini P, D’Elios MM, Trubia M, Pelicci PG, Di Fiore PP: Frequent loss of heterozygosity without loss of genetic material in acute myeloid leukemia with a normal karyotype. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 44:334–337 (2005).
Grimwade D, Walker H, Harrison G, Oliver F, Chatters S, et al: The predictive value of hierarchical cytogenetic classification in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML): Analysis of 1065 patients entered into the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML11 trial. Blood 98:1312–1320 (2001).
Grimwade D, Moorman A, Hills R, Wheatley K, Walker H, et al: Impact of karyotype on treatment outcome in acute myeloid leukemia. Ann Hematol 83 Suppl 1:S45–48 (2004).
Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, Flandrin G, Muller-Hermelink HK, et al: The World Health Organization classification of hematological malignancies report of the clinical advisory committee meeting, Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997. Mod Pathol 13:193–207 (2000).
Heller A, Chudoba I, Bleck C, Senger G, Claussen U, Liehr T: Microdissection based comparative genomic hybridization analysis (micro-CGH) of secondary acute myelogenous leukemias. Int J Oncol 16:461–468 (2000).
Huhta T, Vettenranta K, Heinonen K, Kanerva J, Larramendy ML, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization and conventional cytogenetic analyses in childhood acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 35:311–315 (1999).
Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, Watson SK, DeLeeuw RJ, Chi B, et al: A tiling resolution DNA microarray with complete coverage of the human genome. Nat Genet 36:299–303 (2004).
Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D, Rutovitz D, Gray JW, et al: Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 258:818–821 (1992).
Kallioniemi OP, Kallioniemi A, Piper J, Isola J, Waldman FM, et al: Optimizing comparative genomic hybridization for analysis of DNA sequence copy number changes in solid tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 10:231–243 (1994).
Karst C, Heller A, Claussen U, Gebhart E, Liehr T: Detection of cryptic chromosomal aberrations in the in vitro non-proliferating cells of acute myeloid leukemia. Int J Oncol 27:355–359 (2005).
Kim MH, Stewart J, Devlin C, Kim YT, Boyd E, Connor M: The application of comparative genomic hybridization as an additional tool in the chromosome analysis of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 126:26–33 (2001).
Lindvall C, Nordenskjold M, Porwit A, Bjorkholm M, Blennow E: Molecular cytogenetic characterization of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes with multiple chromosome rearrangements. Haematologica 86:1158–1164 (2001).
Lucito R, West J, Reiner A, Alexander J, Esposito D, et al: Detecting gene copy number fluctuations in tumor cells by microarray analysis of genomic representations. Genome Res 10:1726–1736 (2000).
Mano H: DNA micro-array analysis of myelodysplastic syndrome. Leuk Lymphoma 47:9–14 (2006).
Martinez-Ramirez A, Urioste M, Calasanz MJ, Cigudosa JC, Benitez J: Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis of myelodysplastic syndromes with complex karyotypes. A technical evaluation. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 144:87–89 (2003).
Martinez-Ramirez A, Urioste M, Melchor L, Blesa D, Valle L, et al: Analysis of myelodysplastic syndromes with complex karyotypes by high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization and subtelomeric CGH array. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 42:287–298 (2005).
Mei R, Galipeau PC, Prass C, Berno A, Ghandour G, et al: Genome-wide detection of allelic imbalance using human SNPs and high-density DNA arrays. Genome Res 10:1126–1137 (2000).
Paulsson K, Heidenblad M, Strombeck B, Staaf J, Jonsson G, et al: High-resolution genome-wide array-based comparative genome hybridization reveals cryptic chromosome changes in AML and MDS cases with trisomy 8 as the sole cytogenetic aberration. Leukemia 20:840–846 (2006).
Pinkel D, Segraves R, Sudar D, Clark S, Poole I, et al: High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet 20:207–211 (1998).
Pollack JR, Perou CM, Alizadeh AA, Eisen MB, Pergamenschikov A, et al: Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy-number changes using cDNA microarrays. Nat Genet 23:41–46 (1999).
Raghavan M, Lillington DM, Skoulakis S, Debernardi S, Chaplin T, et al: Genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism analysis reveals frequent partial uniparental disomy due to somatic recombination in acute myeloid leukemias. Cancer Res 65:375–378 (2005).
Rucker FG, Bullinger L, Schwaenen C, Lipka DB, Wessendorf S, et al: Disclosure of candidate genes in acute myeloid leukemia with complex karyotypes using microarray-based molecular characterization. J Clin Oncol 24:3887–3894 (2006a).
Rucker FG, Sander S, Dohner K, Dohner H, Pollack JR, Bullinger L: Molecular profiling reveals myeloid leukemia cell lines to be faithful model systems characterized by distinct genomic aberrations. Leukemia 20:994–1001 (2006b).
Schoch C, Kern W, Kohlmann A, Hiddemann W, Schnittger S, Haferlach T: Acute myeloid leukemia with a complex aberrant karyotype is a distinct biological entity characterized by genomic imbalances and a specific gene expression profile. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 43:227–238 (2005).
Solinas-Toldo S, Lampel S, Stilgenbauer S, Nickolenko J, Benner A, et al: Matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization: Biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 20:399–407 (1997).
Suela J, Alvarez S, Cifuentes F, Largo C, Ferreira BI, et al: DNA profiling analysis of 100 consecutive de novo acute myeloid leukemia cases reveals patterns of genomic instability that affect all cytogenetic risk groups. Leukemia 21:1224-1231 (2007).
Tchinda J, Dijkhuizen T, Vlies Pv P, Kok K, Horst J: Translocations involving 6p22 in acute myeloid leukaemia at relapse: Breakpoint characterization using microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization. Br J Haematol 126:495–500 (2004).
Tyybakinoja A, Saarinen-Pihkala U, Elonen E, Knuutila S: Amplified, lost, and fused genes in 11q23→q25 amplicon in acute myeloid leukemia, an array-CGH study. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45:257–264 (2006).
Tyybakinoja A, Elonen E, Piippo K, Porkka K, Knuutila S: Oligonucleotide array-CGH reveals cryptic gene copy number alterations in karyotypically normal acute myeloid leukemia: Leukemia 21:571–574 (2007).
Valk PJ, Delwel R, Lowenberg B: Gene expression profiling in acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Opin Hematol 12:76–81 (2005).
Wilkens L, Burkhardt D, Tchinda J, Busche G, Werner M, et al: Cytogenetic aberrations in myelodysplastic syndrome detected by comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Diagn Mol Pathol 8:47–53 (1999).
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
Sign in
Digital Version
Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
1 Karger Article Bundle Token
$150
Rental
This article is also available for rental through DeepDyve. 