Twenty-five radical prostatectomy specimens were screened for the presence of numerical chromosome changes within the adenocarcinoma as well as 17 adjacent prostatic intraepithelial neoplasias (PIN) by means of interphase in situ hybridization (ISH) to routinely processed tissue sections. To this end a defined alfoid repetitive DNA probe set was used, specific for the centromeres of chromosomes 1, 7, 8, 10, 15, and Y. The cytogenetic information was correlated with histopathological and clinical features as well as with DNA ploidy. Numerical aberrations of at least one chromosome were shown in 13 of 25 cases (52%). Alterations of chromosome 8 and loss of the Y chromosome were the most frequent findings (both 20%), followed by loss of chromosomes 15 (16%) and 10 (12%). Gain of chromosome 7 was seen in 8% of cases. No aberrations of chromosomes 7, 8, 10, and 15 were found in the adjacent PIN lesions, whereas loss of the Y chromosome in both PIN and tumor occurred in two cases. Also, (low level) aneuploidy was observed in 76% of these PIN lesions. Ploidy of the carcinomas as assessed by ISH correlated well with ploidy measured by DNA flow cytometry (FCM; P < 0.02). Due to the more specific correspondence between ISH and tumor pathology, pathologic grade correlated with ISH aneuploidy (P < 0.05), whereas FCM ploidy did not. Furthermore, genetic heterogeneity within a tumor was seen, as judged by the focal appearance of chromosomal aberrations. Chromosomal alterations occurred in all grades and stages, although loss of chromosome 10, gain of chromosome 7, and aberrations of chromosome 8 tended to predominate in more advanced cancers.

No objective parameters have been found so far that can predict the biological behavior of early stages of prostatic cancer, which are encountered frequently nowadays due to surveillance and screening programs. We have applied comparative genomic hybridization to routinely processed, paraffin-embedded radical prostatectomy specimens derived from patients who participated in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We defined a panel consisting of 36 early cancer specimens: 13 small (total tumor volume (Tv) < 0.5 ml) carcinomas and 23 intermediate (Tv between 0.5-1.0 ml) tumors. These samples were compared with a set of 16 locally advanced, large (Tv > 2.0 ml) tumor samples, not derived from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Chromosome arms that frequently (ie, > or = 15%) showed loss in the small tumors included 13q (31%), 6q (23%), and Y (15%), whereas frequent (ie, > or = 15%) gain was seen of 20q (15%). In the intermediate cancers, loss was detected of 8p (35%), 16q (30%), 5q (26%), Y (22%), 6q, and 18q (both 17%). No consistent gains were found in this group. In the large tumors, loss was seen of 13q (69%), 8p (50%), 5q, 6q (both 31%), and Y (15%). Gains were observed of 8q (37%), 3q (25%), 7p, 7q, 9q, and Xq (all 19%). Comparison of these early, localized tumors with large adenocarcinomas showed a significant increase in the number of aberrant chromosomes per case (Rs = 0.36, P = 0.009). The same was true for the number of lost or gained chromosomes per case (Rs = 0.27, P: = 0.05; Rs = 0.48, respectively; P < 0.001). Interestingly, chromosomal alterations that were found in previous studies to be potential biomarkers for tumor aggressiveness, ie, gain of 7pq and/or 8q, were already distinguished in the small and intermediate cancers. In conclusion, our data show that chromosomal losses, more specifically of 6q and 13q, are early events in prostatic tumorigenesis, whereas chromosomal gains, especially of 8q, appear to be late events in prostatic tumor development. Finally, early localized tumors, as detected by screening programs, harbor cancers with aggressive genetic characteristics.

The nuclear position of pericentromeric DNA of chromosome 11 appears to be random in G0 and non-random in G1 human lymphocytes Hulspas, R.; Houtsmuller, A.; Krijtenburg, P.-J.; Bauman, J.G.J.; Nanninga, N. Published in: Chromosoma DOI:10.1007/BF00352253 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA):Hulspas, R., Houtsmuller, A., Krijtenburg, P-J., Bauman, J. G. J., & Nanninga, N. (1994). The nuclear position of pericentromeric DNA of chromosome 11 appears to be random in G0 and non-random in G1 human lymphocytes. Chromosoma, 103, 286-292. DOI: 10.1007/BF00352253 General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Download date: 12 May 2018Chromosoma ( Abstract. The nuclear topography of pericentromeric DNA of chromosome 11 was analyzed in G O (nonstimulated) and G 1 [phytohemagglutinin (PHA) stimulated] human lymphocytes by confocal microscopy. In addition to the nuclear center, the centrosome was used as a second point of reference in the three-dimensional (3D) analysis. Pericentromeric DNA of chromosome 11 and the centrosome were labeled using a combination of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunofluorescence. To preserve the 3D morphology of the cells, these techniques were performed on whole cells in suspension. Three-dimensional images of the cells were analyzed with a recently developed 3D software program (Interactive Measurement of Axes and Positioning in 3 Dimensions). The distribution of the chromosome 11 centromeres appeared to be random during the G O stage but clearly non-random during the G 1 stage, when the nuclear center was used as a reference point. Further statistical analysis of the G1 cells revealed that the centromeres were randomly distributed in a shell underlying the nuclear membrane. A topographical relationship between the centrosome and the centromeres appeared to be absent during the G O and G I stages of the cell cycle.

Detection of fluorescein-5-isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled conjugates is suboptimal in two-color confocal scanning laser microscopy (CLSM). This limits the detection of small, dimly fluorescent targets. We explored the possible advantages of applying eosin-5-isothiocyanate (EITC) conjugated to avidin (Av-EITC) as an alternative for Av-FITC in CSLM. Despite the lower quantum efficiency of EITC, we found that the measured Av-EITC and Av-FITC emission intensities were similar as a result of the standard filter combinations used for simultaneous two-color detection in the Bio-Rad MRC 600 CSLM. The advantage of Av-EITC was that its fading characteristics compared very favorably to those of Av-FITC. An excitation intensity-dependent increase in Av-EITC fluorescence was observed, followed by an exponential decrease. This increase in fluorescence allows longer observation times, averaging of several scans without loss of brightness, and thus detection of dimly fluorescent targets by CSLM.

The accuracy of cytogenetic analyses of human solid cancers has improved enormously over the past decade by the introduction and refinement of DNA in situ hybridization (ISH) techniques. This methodology can be applied to cells in the interphase state, thereby making it an excellent tool for the delineation of chromosomal aberrations in solid tumors. The use of non-isotopic ISH to intact and disaggregated cancer specimens will be discussed, as well as comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) with tumor-derived DNAs. In this review we will focus on hybridocytochemical interphase approaches for the detection of chromosomal changes in frequently occurring human epithelial malignancies, e.g., breast, lung, and prostate carcinomas. We will further discuss the use of ISH procedures for the genetic analysis of precursor conditions leading to invasive carcinomas. Knowledge concerning these precancerous conditions is increasing, and its importance in cancer prevention has been recognized. Interphase cytogenetics by ISH, as well as CGH, with DNAs derived from microdissected, precancerous, dysplastic tissue areas will increase our understanding of these lesions, both at the investigative and diagnostic levels.