Startseite Advanced tools for BRCA1/2 mutational screening: comparison between two methods for large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) detection
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Advanced tools for BRCA1/2 mutational screening: comparison between two methods for large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) detection

  • Paola Concolino EMAIL logo , Enrica Mello , Angelo Minucci , Concetta Santonocito , Giovanni Scambia , Bruno Giardina und Ettore Capoluongo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 26. März 2014
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Background: Currently, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is the most commonly used technique for the detection of large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, a very fast assay, the BRCA1/2 multiplex amplicon quantification (MAQ), has been recently developed by Multiplicom.

Methods: As no data regarding the application of MAQ method to BRCA1/2 genes are available in literature, here we compared for the first time the performance of the MAQ assay with MLPA by using several positive BRCA1/2 LGRs DNA samples (previously tested by MLPA).

Results: MAQ method was able to detect all BRCA1/2 LGRs and no false-positive or -negative results were obtained in independent repetitive experiments.

Conclusions: We can affirm that MAQ, as well as MLPA method, results to be valid and reproducible tools for molecular diagnostics and we are confident that this assay can be used for BRCA1/2 mutational screening as a fast and safe alternative to MLPA, particularly in the first line of analysis.


Corresponding authors: Paola Concolino, PhD and Prof. Ettore Capoluongo, Laboratory of Clinical Molecular and Personalized Diagnostics, Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy, Phone: +39 0630154250, Fax: +39 0630156706, E-mail: ;

References

1. Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, Tavtigian S, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science New York, NY 1994;266;5182:66–71.10.1126/science.7545954Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, Swift S, Seal S, Mangion J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature 1995;378:789–92.10.1038/378789a0Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Hartman AR, Kaldate RR, Sailer LM, Painter L, Grier CE, Endsley RR, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 2012;118:2787–95.10.1002/cncr.26576Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Available from: Breast Cancer Information Core, National Human Genome Research Institute, BIC Database http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/bic/. Accessed 10 November, 2013.Suche in Google Scholar

5. Sluiter MD, van Rensburg EJ. Large genomic rearrangements of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes: review of the literature and report of a novel BRCA1 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;125:325–49.10.1007/s10549-010-0817-zSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Smith TM, Lee MK, Szabo CI, Jerome N, McEuen M, Taylor M, et al. Complete genomic sequence and analysis of 117 kb of human DNA containing the gene BRCA1. Genome Res 1996;6:1029–49.10.1101/gr.6.11.1029Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Armour JA, Barton DE, Cockburn DJ, Taylor GR. The detection of large deletions or duplications in genomic DNA. Human Mutat 2012;20:325–37.10.1002/humu.10133Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Concolino P, Mello E, Toscano V, Ameglio F, Zuppi C, Capoluongo E. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) assay for the detection of CYP21A2 gene deletions/duplications in congenital adrenal hyperplasia: first technical report. Clin Chim Acta 2009;402:164–70.10.1016/j.cca.2009.01.008Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Bunyan DJ, Eccles DM, Sillibourne J, Wilkins E, Thomas NS, Shea-Simonds J, et al. Dosage analysis of cancer predisposition genes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1155–9.10.1038/sj.bjc.6602121Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Hartmann C, John AL, Klaes R, Hofmann W, Bielen R, Koehler R, et al. Large BRCA1 gene deletions are found in 3% of German high-risk breast cancer families. Hum Mutat 2004;24:534–41.10.1002/humu.9291Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

11. Montagna M, Palma MD, Menin C, Agata S, De Nicolo A, Chieco-Bianchi L, et al. Genomic rearrangements account for more than one-third of the BRCA1 mutations in northern Italian breast/ovarian cancer families. Hum Mol Genet 2003;12:1055–61.10.1093/hmg/ddg120Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Feliubadaló L, Lopez-Doriga A, Castellsagué E, del Valle J, Menéndez M, Tornero E, et al. Next-generation sequencing meets genetic diagnostics: development of a comprehensive workflow for the analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:864–70.10.1038/ejhg.2012.270Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

13. Veschi S, Aceto G, Scioletti AP, Gatta V, Palka G, Cama A, et al. High prevalence of BRCA1 deletions in BRCAPRO-positive patients with high carrier probability. Ann Oncol 2007;18(Suppl 6):vi86–92.10.1093/annonc/mdm233Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Puget N, Gad S, Perrin-Vidoz L, Sinilnikova OM, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Lenoir GM, et al. Distinct BRCA1 rearrangements involving the BRCA1 pseudogene suggest the existence of a recombination hot spot. Am J Hum Genet 2002;70:858–65.10.1086/339434Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Vasickova P, Machackova E, Lukesova M, Damborsky J, Horky O, Pavlu H, et al. High occurrence of BRCA1 intragenic rearrangements in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in the Czech Republic. BMC Med Genet 2007;8:32.10.1186/1471-2350-8-32Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

16. Preisler-Adams S, Schönbuchner I, Fiebig B, Welling B, Dworniczak B, Weber BH. Gross rearrangements in BRCA1 but not BRCA2 play a notable role in predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer in high-risk families of German origin. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2006;168:44–9.10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2005.07.005Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Puget N, Sinilnikova OM, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Audoynaud C, Pagès S, Lynch HT, et al. An Alu-mediated 6-kb duplication in the BRCA1 gene: a new founder mutation? Am J Hum Genet 1999;64:300–2.10.1086/302211Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Hansen TV, Jønson L, Albrechtsen A, Andersen MK, Ejlertsen B, Nielsen FC. Large BRCA1 and BRCA2 genomic rearrangements in Danish high risk breast-ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115:315–23.10.1007/s10549-008-0088-0Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2013-12-29
Accepted: 2014-3-3
Published Online: 2014-3-26
Published in Print: 2014-8-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Colorectal cancer and screening programs: not only analytical issues
  4. Reviews
  5. Laboratory diagnostics of inherited platelet disorders
  6. Reticulated platelets: analytical aspects and clinical utility
  7. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  8. Advanced tools for BRCA1/2 mutational screening: comparison between two methods for large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) detection
  9. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  10. Establishing, harmonizing and analyzing critical values in a large academic health center
  11. Standardization of DiaSorin and Roche automated third generation PTH assays with an International Standard: impact on clinical populations
  12. First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Müllerian hormone
  13. A multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a defined patient cohort
  14. New biomarkers in diagnosis of early onset preeclampsia and imminent delivery prognosis
  15. Soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor ratio in mid-pregnancy as a predictor of preterm preeclampsia in asymptomatic pregnant women
  16. Development of a new immunoassay for the detection of ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in meconium: validation with authentic specimens analyzed using LC-MS/MS. Preliminary results
  17. Optimizing centrifugation of coagulation samples in laboratory automation
  18. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer CS-5100 and its utility in high throughput laboratories
  19. A new sampling device for faecal immunochemical testing: haemoglobin stability is still an open issue
  20. Reference Values
  21. Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with sex and age, but data are not transferable across geography for colorectal cancer screening
  22. Cancer Diagnostics
  23. Enhanced miR-182 transcription is a predictor of poor overall survival in colorectal adenocarcinoma patients
  24. Importance of promoter methylation of GATA4 and TP53 genes in endometrioid carcinoma of endometrium
  25. Frequent methylation of HOXA9 gene in tumor tissues and plasma samples from human hepatocellular carcinomas
  26. Letters to the Editor
  27. Further comments on “Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation”
  28. A questionnaire study among nurses: awareness of blood and urine sample collection procedures
  29. Measurement uncertainty and clinical interpretation of measurement results
  30. Laboratory automation: how will you select the boarding assays?
  31. Improvement and evaluation of a 1,2-dioleoylglycerol method for measuring pancreatic lipase catalytic activity in serum
  32. The novel variant p.Ser465Leu in the PCSK9 gene does not account for the decreased LDLR activity in members of a FH family
  33. 1,5 Anhydroglucitol serum concentration as a biomarker for screening gestational diabetes in early pregnancy
  34. A rare condition: IgE type monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance
  35. Laboratory analysis of intraosseous blood: bad to the bone?
Heruntergeladen am 17.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2013-1114/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen