No abstract

Conventional cytogenetics (CC) is proven as a diagnostic and prognostic factor in myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). However, CC may be hampered by insufficient metaphase preparation and cannot analyze interphase nuclei. These problems are solved by using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). The CGH was applied to samples from 45 patients with MDS, and the results were compared with CC and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The CC detected aberrations in 12 of 45 samples, including chromosomes 3 (n = 1), 5 (n = 9), 7 (n = 2),8(n = 1), 18(n = 1),21 (n = 1), X (n = 1), and Y(n = 2). In one patient, loss of B and C group chromosomes and a marker chromosome were seen. The CGH revealed chromosomal imbalances in 18 of 45 samples, including chromosomes 5 (n = 11), 7 (n = 2), 8 (n = 1), 18(n = 1), 20(n = 1), 21 (n = 1), X (n = 1), and Y (n = 2). All unbalanced aberrations found by CC were detected by CGH, too. In two patients, the CGH found additional aberrations and redefined the aberrations of the chromosomes of the B and C group in one sample. The FISH confirmed these aberrations. Additionally performed FISH for chromosomes 5, 7, and 8 gave normal findings in all patients found to be normal in CC and CGH. The CGH and FISH confirmed the results obtained by CC. All three techniques showed changes of chromosomes 5 and 7 as the most frequent aberrations, emphasizing the importance of these chromosomes in the development of MDS. Furthermore, the CC is proven as the basic technique for cytogenetic evaluation of MDS.

Objective: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has been established as an informative technique in genetic analysis. However, differences in the ratio of hybridization intensities were reported for particular chromosomes, which may affect CGH results. The aim of this study was to define these differences in more detail. For this purpose, CGH results of 70 samples of bone marrow cells (BMC) with normal karyotype in conventional cytogenetics (CC) were evaluated using seven different reference DNAs and two different DNA labeling systems. Methods and Results: CGH using fluorochrome-conjugated nucleotides for DNA labeling indicated signal deviations in 21/70 BMC samples. Deviations affected chromosomes 1 (n = 21), 2 (n = 11), 4 (n = 11), 5 (n = 9), 6 (n = 7), 7 (n = 2), 8 (n = 2), 12 (n = 5), 13 (n = 15), 14 (n = 1), 16 (n = 17), 17 (n = 11), 19 (n = 21), 20 (n = 12), and/or 22 (n = 17). None of the imbalances were confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Using digoxigenin and biotin-conjugated nucleotides in exemplary cases (n = 5) led to the disappearance of the signal deviations. Repeated CGH experiments using seven different reference DNAs showed remarkable variations in the signal deviations. Conclusion: Hybridization differences depend not only on the hapten or fluorochrome-labeled nucleotides used for DNA labeling, but also on the reference DNA chosen. Therefore, close control of CGH experiments is mandatory, and additional techniques such as FISH should be performed to confirm the results obtained by CGH.

No abstract