scholarly journals Tumor heterogeneity assessed by sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haoyun Lei ◽  
E. Michael Gertz ◽  
Alejandro A. Schäffer ◽  
Xuecong Fu ◽  
Yifeng Tao ◽  
...  

AbstractComputational reconstruction of clonal evolution in cancers has become a crucial tool for understanding how tumors initiate and progress and how this process varies across patients. The field still struggles, however, with special challenges of applying phylogenetic methods to cancers, such as the prevalence and importance of copy number alteration (CNA) and structural variation (SV) events in tumor evolution, which are difficult to profile accurately by prevailing sequencing methods in such a way that subsequent reconstruction by phylogenetic inference algorithms is accurate. In the present work, we develop computational methods to combine sequencing with multiplex interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (miFISH) to exploit the complementary advantages of each technology in inferring accurate models of clonal CNA evolution accounting for both focal changes and aneuploidy at whole-genome scales. We demonstrate on simulated data that incorporation of FISH data substantially improves accurate inference of focal CNA and ploidy changes in clonal evolution from deconvolving bulk sequence data. Analysis of real glioblastoma data for which FISH, bulk sequence, and single cell sequence are all available confirms the power of FISH to enhance accurate reconstruction of clonal copy number evolution in conjunction with bulk and optionally single-cell sequence data.Availabilitygithub.com/CMUSchwartzLab/[email protected]

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaozhu Wang ◽  
Shin-ichiro Takebayashi ◽  
Evans Bernardin ◽  
David M. Gilbert ◽  
Ravindran Chella ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 182 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsuzsa Rákosy ◽  
Laura Vízkeleti ◽  
Szilvia Ecsedi ◽  
Ágnes Bégány ◽  
Gabriella Emri ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 142 (10) ◽  
pp. 1254-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine B. Geiersbach ◽  
Julia A. Bridge ◽  
Michelle Dolan ◽  
Lawrence J. Jennings ◽  
Diane L. Persons ◽  
...  

Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document