Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Suijkerbuijk, Karijn P.M. | Pan, Xiaojuan | van der Wall, Elsken | van Diest, Paul J.; | Vooijs, Marc;
Affiliations: Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands | Division of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands | Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro Lab), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Note: [] Corresponding author: Prof. Paul J. van Diest, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 88 7556565; Fax: +31 30 2544990; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: Background: Promoter hypermethylation has emerged as a promising cancer biomarker. Currently, a large variety of quantitative and non-quantitative techniques is used to measure methylation in clinical specimens. Here we directly compared three commonly used methylation assays and assessed the influence of tissue fixation, target sequence location and the amount of DNA on their performance. Methods: We used Methylation-Specific PCR (MSP), Quantitative Multiplex MSP (QM-MSP) and Methylation-Specific Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MS-MLPA) to compare methylation of CCND2, SCGB3A1, RARB and RASSF1 on DNA from 40 breast carcinomas. Results: A comparison between MSP and QM-MSP on the same samples showed a high discrepancy: 20% of tumors that showed no methylation in MSP gave >10% methylation in QM-MSP. In contrast, QM-MSP correlated strongly with MS-MLPA when targeting the same sequence in DNA from paraffin embedded as well as fresh frozen tissue. This correlation declined when target sequences were non-overlapping. In titration experiments, MSP and MS-MLPA performed robust with 10 ng of DNA, while QM-MSP was at least ten-fold more sensitive. Conclusion: Despite the difference in molecular basis, QM-MSP and MS-MLPA showed moderate to strong correlations. In contrast, there was a poor concordance between either of these techniques and non-quantitative MSP. For biological samples with scarce DNA, QM-MSP is the method of choice.
Keywords: Breast cancer, DNA methylation, methodology, MS-MLPA, MSP, QM-MSP
DOI: 10.3233/ACP-CLO-2010-0542
Journal: Analytical Cellular Pathology, vol. 33, no. 3-4, pp. 133-141, 2010
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]