Comparative genomic hybridization on microarray (a-CGH) in constitutional and acquired mosaicism may detect as low as 8% abnormal cells

Abstract. Background: The results of cytogenetic investigations on unbalanced chromosome anomalies, both constitutional and acquired, were largely improved by comparative genomic hybridization on microarray (a-CGH), but in mosaicism the ability of a-CGH to reliably detect imbalances is not yet well established. This problem of sensitivity is even more relevant in acquired mosaicism in neoplastic diseases, where cells carrying acquired imbalances coexist with normal cells, in particular when the proportion of abnormal cells may be low. We constructed a synthetic mosaicism by mixing the DNA of three patients carrying altogether seven chromosome imbalances with normal sex-matched DNA. Dilutions were prepared mimicking 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 10% and 15% levels of mosaicism. Oligomer-based a-CGH (244 K whole-genome system) was applied on the patients' DNA and customized slides designed around the regions of imbalance were used for the synthetic mosaics. Results and conclusions. The a-CGH on the synthetic mosaics proved to be able to detect as low as 8% abnormal cells in the tissue examined. Although in our experiment some regions of imbalances escaped to be revealed at this level, and were detected only at 10-15% level, it should be remarked that these ones were the smallest analyzed, and that the imbalances recurrent as clonal anomalies in cancer and leukaemia are similar in size to those revealed at 8% level

Different loss of material in recurrent chromosome 20 interstitial deletions in Shwachman-Diamond syndrome and in myeloid neoplasms

Abstract BACKGROUND: An interstitial deletion of the long arms of chromosome 20, del(20)(q), is frequent in the bone marrow (BM) of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), and it is recurrent in the BM of patients with Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS), who have a 30-40% risk of developing MDS and AML. RESULTS: We report the results obtained by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH) in six patients with SDS, and we compare the loss of chromosome 20 material with one patient with MDS, and with data on 92 informative patients with MDS/AML/MPN and del(20)(q) collected from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The chromosome material lost in MDS/AML/MPN is highly variable with no identifiable common deleted regions, whereas in SDS the loss is more uniform: in 3/6 patients it was almost identical, and the breakpoints that we defined are probably common to most patients from the literature. In some SDS patients less material may be lost, due to different distal breakpoints, but the proximal breakpoint is in the same region, always leading to the loss of the EIF6 gene, an event which was related to a lower risk of MDS/AML in comparison with other patients