ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2006
Limited tissue fixation times and whole genomic amplification do not impact array CGH profiles.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formalin Fixation, Delay to Fixation, and Time in Fixative Adversely Impact Copy Number Variation Analysis by aCGH.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2023Article
- Small Nucleolar RNA Score: An Assay to Detect Formalin-Overfixed Tissue.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2018Article
- Effective DNA/RNA co-extraction for analysis of microRNAs, mRNAs, and genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens.PloS one · 2012Article
- Whole genome amplification and its impact on CGH array profiles.BMC research notes · 2008Article
- DNA degradation test predicts success in whole-genome amplification from diverse clinical samples.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2007Article
- Preservation of skin DNA for oligonucleotide array CGH studies: a feasibility study.Archives of dermatological research · 2007Article
- Genomic alterations in sporadic synchronous primary breast cancer using array and metaphase comparative genomic hybridization.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2007Article
- Strategies for the detection of copy number and other structural variants in the human genome.Human genomics · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArray comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) is a powerful method for the genetic analysis of lesional and normal tissues to identify genomic imbalances associated with malignancies. However, the use of this technique with DNA extracted from archival formalin fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens, the most widely available resource for retrospective studies, is subject to quantitative and qualitative limitations. In this report, the suitability and integrity of the DNA extracted from FFPE MCF7 breast cancer cells fixed for different periods of time for array CGH applications were examined.
resultsUsing our established cDNA microarray protocol in conjunction with whole genome amplification methods, the genetic profiles of freshly harvested MCF7 cells and their matched FFPE counterparts were analysed. Congruent profiles between FFPE MCF7 cells and their fresh counterpart and between amplified and non-amplified FFPE MCF7 cells were observed. Our results demonstrate that formalin fixation of <20 hours has no significant adverse effect on the integrity of DNA for array CGH studies.
conclusionsOur findings attest to the fidelity of our array CGH methods to effectively examine material recovered from FFPE tissue specimens for microarray applications. This in turn has great potential to identify novel diagnostic and prognostic markers for human disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.