首页> 外文期刊>Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer >Interpretation of submicroscopic deletions of the BCR or ABL gene should not depend on extra signal-FISH: problems in interpretation of submicroscopic deletion of the BCR or ABL gene with extra signal-FISH.
【24h】

Interpretation of submicroscopic deletions of the BCR or ABL gene should not depend on extra signal-FISH: problems in interpretation of submicroscopic deletion of the BCR or ABL gene with extra signal-FISH.

机译:BCR或ABL基因的亚显微缺失的解释不应该依赖于额外的信号FISH:解释具有额外信号FISH的BCR或ABL基因的亚显微缺失的解释。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Several groups have demonstrated that a submicroscopic gene deletion in Ph+ chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is associated with a poor prognosis and reduced response to treatment. To assess the variation between detection methods in the interpretation of a submicroscopic gene deletion, we performed an extra signal (ES)-FISH BCR/ABL and double-FISH (D-FISH) BCR/ABL on frozen bone marrow cells from 79 patients with CML (63 in the chronic phase, 6 in the accelerated phase, and 10 in blast crisis) and 30 patients with a BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative disorder as determined by RT-PCR. The normal cutoff values were 0.22% for ES-FISH and 0.25% for D-FISH. The cutoff values for false-positive signals from a juxtaposition of the BCR and ABL gene were 11% in ES-FISH and 13% in D-FISH. Of the 14 patients who showed an ABL gene deletion by ES-FISH, 5 had an ABL deletion only, 5 had both a BCR and an ABL deletion, but 4 proved to have a classic BCR/ABL rearrangement without a submicroscopic deletion, as determined by D-FISH. Discrepant results between ES- and D-FISH were observed in 12 of the 79 patients (15.8%), and the main causes of a discrepancy were a false-positive ABL deletion (4 of 12, 33%), a variant Philadelphia chromosome (3 of 12, 25%), an inversion of derivative chromosome 9 at the very breakpoint of the ABL gene (9q32) (1 of 12, 8.3%), a cryptic variant Ph chromosome (1 of 12, 8.3%), and a marker chromosome (1 of 12, 8.3%). Although there was no significant difference in the sensitivity for the detection of the fusion signal between ES- and D-FISH, ES-FISH showed a high percentage of cells with false-positive fusion signals (1 orange, 1 green, 1 yellow), which makes it difficult to interpret the submicroscopic ABL deletion. In conclusion, an interpretation of the submicroscopic deletions of the BCR or ABL gene should not depend on ES-FISH.
机译:几组研究表明,Ph +慢性骨髓性白血病(CML)中的亚显微基因缺失与不良预后和对治疗的反应降低有关。为了评估亚显微基因缺失解释中检测方法之间的差异,我们对来自79例患者的冷冻骨髓细胞进行了额外的信号(ES)-FISH BCR / ABL和双FISH(D-FISH)BCR / ABL通过RT-PCR测定,CML(慢性期为63例,加速期为6例,爆炸性危机为10例)和30例BCR / ABL阴性骨髓增生性疾病患者。 ES-FISH的正常截止值为0.22%,D-FISH的正常截止值为0.25%。 BCR和ABL基因并列产生的假阳性信号的临界值在ES-FISH中为11%,在D-FISH中为13%。在通过ES-FISH显示ABL基因缺失的14例患者中,只有5例具有ABL缺失,有5例同时具有BCR和ABL缺失,但有4例经证实证实具有经典的BCR / ABL重排而没有亚显微缺失由D-FISH。在79例患者中有12例(15.8%)观察到ES-和D-FISH的结果不一致,并且引起差异的主要原因是假阳性ABL缺失(12例中有4例,33%),这是费城染色体的一种变异( 3个中的12个,占25%),在ABL基因最断裂点处衍生染色体9的倒置(9q32)(12个,占8.3%),隐匿变体Ph染色体(12个,占8.3%)和一个标记染色体(12之1,占8.3%)。尽管在ES-FISH和D-FISH之间检测融合信号的灵敏度没有显着差异,但是ES-FISH显示具有假阳性融合信号的细胞百分比很高(1个橙色,1个绿色,1个黄色),这使得难以解释亚显微ABL缺失。总之,对BCR或ABL基因亚显微缺失的解释不应依赖于ES-FISH。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号