Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29339834›Full record

ReviewLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2018

Use of multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect deletions in clinical tissue sections.

Maisa Yoshimoto, Olga Ludkovski, Jennifer Good, Ciro Pereira, Robert J Gooding, Jean McGowan-Jordan, Alexander Boag, Andrew Evans, Ming-Sound Tsao, Paulo Nuin and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Maisa YoshimotoDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Olga LudkovskiDepartment of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Jennifer GoodDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Ciro PereiraDepartments of Genetics, School of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Robert J GoodingDepartment of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Jean McGowan-JordanGenetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Alexander BoagDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Andrew EvansDepartment of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Ming-Sound TsaoDepartment of Pathology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Paulo NuinDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Jeremy A SquireDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. jsquireinsp@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9863-468X
Queen's University · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A variety of laboratory methods are available for the detection of deletions of tumor suppressor genes and losses of their proteins. The clinical utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for the identification of deletions of tumor suppressor genes has previously been limited by difficulties in the interpretation of FISH signal patterns. The first deletion FISH assays using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections had to deal with a significant background level of signal losses affecting nuclei that are truncated by the cutting process of slide preparation. Recently, more efficient probe designs, incorporating probes adjacent to the tumor suppressor gene of interest, have increased the accuracy of FISH deletion assays so that true chromosomal deletions can be readily distinguished from the false signal losses caused by sectioning artifacts. This mini-review discusses the importance of recurrent tumor suppressor gene deletions in human cancer and reviews the common FISH methods being used to detect the genomic losses encountered in clinical specimens. The use of new probe designs to recognize truncation artifacts is illustrated with a four-color PTEN FISH set optimized for prostate cancer tissue sections. Data are presented to show that when section thickness is reduced, the frequency of signal truncation losses is increased. We also provide some general guidelines that will help pathologists and cytogeneticists run routine deletion FISH assays and recognize sectioning artifacts. Finally, we summarize how recently developed sequence-based approaches are being used to identify recurrent deletions using small DNA samples from tumors.

Indexed as

Gene DeletionGenes, Tumor SuppressorHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29339834
OpenAlexW2783999439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.