Comparison of Comparative Genomic Hybridization Technologies Across Microarray Platforms Susan Hester1, Laura Reid2, Agnes Viale3, Norma Nowak4, Herbert.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Microarray Technique, Analysis, and Applications in Dermatology Jennifer Villaseñor-Park 1 and Alex G Ortega-Loayza 2 1 Department of Dermatology, University.
Advertisements

ICSA, 6/2007 Pei Wang, 1 Spatial Smoothing and Hot Spot Detection for CGH data using the Fused Lasso Pei Wang Cancer Prevention Research.
Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a technique for studying chromosomal changes in cancer. As cancerous cells multiply, they can undergo dramatic.
We processed six samples in triplicate using 11 different array platforms at one or two laboratories. we obtained measures of array signal variability.
Technology & Methods Seminar:
Tumour karyotype Spectral karyotyping showing chromosomal aberrations in cancer cell lines.
Development, Implementation and Testing of a DNA Microarray Test Suite Ehsanul Haque Mentors: Dr. Cecilie Boysen Dr. Jim Breaux ViaLogy Corp.
STAC: A multi-experiment method for analyzing array-based genomic copy number data Sharon J. Diskin, Thomas Eck, Joel P. Greshock, Yael P. Mosse, Tara.
Mining SNPs from EST Databases Picoult-Newberg et al. (1999)
Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH). Outline Introduction to gene copy numbers and CGH technology DNA copy number alterations in breast cancer (Pollack.
Data analytical issues with high-density oligonucleotide arrays A model for gene expression analysis and data quality assessment.
Multi-dimensional Genomic Profiling of Acute Leukemias Characterized by MLL gene rearrangements Eunice S. Wang MD (Medicine) and Norma J. Nowak PhD (Cancer.
CLL Research Consortium FISH studies, Core C June, 2005 NCI Submission.
Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center The BCM Microarray Core Facility: Closing the Next Generation Gap Alina Raza 1, Mylinh Hoang 1, Gayan De Silva.
ChrX probes Autosomal probes ChrX probes Autosomal probes Autosomal probes ChrX probes Effect of hybridization temperature on microarray performance Figure.
Paola CASTAGNOLI Maria FOTI Microarrays. Applicazioni nella genomica funzionale e nel genotyping DIPARTIMENTO DI BIOTECNOLOGIE E BIOSCIENZE.
Expression profiling of peripheral blood cells for early detection of breast cancer Introduction Early detection of breast cancer is a key to successful.
Page 1 Mouse Genome CGH Microarray 44A. Page 2 Mouse Genome CGH Microarray Kit 44A Designed for CGH, Validated with samples of known aberrations Designed.
1. Abstract SAGE Serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) is a method of large-scale gene expression analysis.that involves sequencing small segments.
Large Scale Variation Among Human and Great Ape Genomes Determined by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization Devin P. Locke, Richard Segraves, Lucia Carbone,
Microarrays and Their Uses Brad Windle, Ph.D
Microarray - Leukemia vs. normal GeneChip System.
ARK-Genomics: Centre for Comparative and Functional Genomics in Farm Animals Richard Talbot Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS University of Edinburgh Microarrays.
Microarrays and Gene Expression Analysis. 2 Gene Expression Data Microarray experiments Applications Data analysis Gene Expression Databases.
Comparison of Microarray Data Generated from Degraded RNA using Five Different Target Synthesis Methods and Commercial Microarrays Scott Tighe and Tim.
Copy Number Variation Eleanor Feingold University of Pittsburgh March 2012.
____ __ __ _______Birol et al :: AGBT :: 7 February 2008 A NOVEL APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE NOISE IN DETECTING COPY NUMBER VARIATIONS USING OLIGONUCLEOTIDE.
No reference available
From: Duggan et.al. Nature Genetics 21:10-14, 1999 Microarray-Based Assays (The Basics) Each feature or “spot” represents a specific expressed gene (mRNA).
L.S. Rector 1, N.A. Yamada 2, M.E. Aston 1, M.C. Sederberg 1 R.A. Ach 2, P. Tsang 2, E. Carr 2, A. Scheffer-Wong 2, N. Sampas 2, B. Peter 2, S. Laderman.
Copy Number Analysis in the Cancer Genome Using SNP Arrays Qunyuan Zhang, Aldi Kraja Division of Statistical Genomics Department of Genetics & Center for.
Microarray Technology and Data Analysis Roy Williams PhD Sanford | Burnham Medical Research Institute.
Gene Expression Profiling Brad Windle, Ph.D
Arrays How do they work ? What are they ?. WT Dwarf Transgenic Other species Arrays are inverted Northerns: Extract target RNA YFG Label probe + hybridise.
Detection of Human microRNAs across miRNA Array and Next Generation DNA Sequencing Platforms The Joint MARG/DSRG Research Group Project Herbert.
The 2007 Microarray Research Group Project
Using ArrayStar with a public dataset
Microarray - Leukemia vs. normal GeneChip System.
Global Variation in Copy Number in the Human Genome
Microarray Experiment Design and Data Interpretation
A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Integrated Cytogenetic and High-Resolution Array CGH Analysis of Genomic Alterations Associated with MYCN Amplification Cytogenet Genome Res 2011;134:27–39.
The array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH/CMA) technology
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (February 2002)
Microarray Technology and Applications
Lisa Edelmann, Raj K. Pandita, Bernice E. Morrow 
Archival Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytopathology (FNAC) Samples
by Jaroslaw P. Maciejewski, and Ghulam J. Mufti
DNA Chip Data Interpretation Tools: Genmapp & Dragon View
CSCI2950-C Lecture 3 September 13, 2007.
Volume 133, Issue 5, Pages (November 2007)
Genomic alterations in breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231.
Welcome To The Centre for Applied Genomics
Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG Translocations in Human Prostate Cancer by Expression Profiling Using GeneChip Human Exon 1.0 ST Arrays  Sameer Jhavar, Alison.
Getting the numbers comparable
Microarray Techniques to Analyze Copy-Number Alterations in Genomic DNA: Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization and Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Array 
Eric Samorodnitsky, Jharna Datta, Benjamin M
A Genome-Wide High-Resolution Array-CGH Analysis of Cutaneous Melanoma and Comparison of Array-CGH to FISH in Diagnostic Evaluation  Lu Wang, Mamta Rao,
Volume 125, Issue 7, Pages (June 2006)
Catarina D. Campbell, Nick Sampas, Anya Tsalenko, Peter H
Gene Expression Analysis
High-Resolution Molecular Characterization of 15q11-q13 Rearrangements by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (Array CGH) with Detection of Gene Dosage 
Identification and characterization of a novel KRAS rearrangement in metastatic prostate cancer. Identification and characterization of a novel KRAS rearrangement.
Summary results from analyses to attempt to replicate previously reported DS+AVSD (Down Syndrome with a complete atrioventricular septal defect)-associated.
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages (July 2015)
Other genomic arrays: Methylation, chIP on chip…
Tools for Molecular Biology
PD-L1 expression correlates with T-cell markers and an IFN response signature in human melanomas. PD-L1 expression correlates with T-cell markers and an.
Data Type 1: Microarrays
Cell lines with aberrant expression of NRG1 are exquisitely sensitive to downregulation of ERBB3 signaling. Cell lines with aberrant expression of NRG1.
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Comparative Genomic Hybridization Technologies Across Microarray Platforms Susan Hester1, Laura Reid2, Agnes Viale3, Norma Nowak4, Herbert Auer5, Kevin Knudtson6, William Ward1, Jay Tiesman7, Caprice Rosato8, Aldo Massimi9, Greg Khitrov10 & Nancy Denslow11 1Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC; 2Expression Analysis, Inc., Durham, NC; 3Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; 4Department of Cancer Genetics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; 5Columbus Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH; 6University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; 7Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH; 8Center for Genome Research & Biocomputing, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; 9Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY; 10Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY; 11University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Abstract: 2. Accuracy: HL-60 is reported to have the following copy number changes: Amplification at 8q24,Trisomy 18, monosomy X as well as Deletions at 5q11.2-q31, 6q12, 9p21.3-p22, 10p12-p15, 14q22-q31 and17p12-p13.3. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2003 Nov;147(1):28-35; Peiffer et al.(2006) 3. Platform Resolution: Circular Binary Segmentation (CBS) Analysis Study Questions: What is the precision of each platform? How accurately does each platform detect Known Copy Number changes? What is the resolution of microarray CGH? Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) measures DNA copy number differences between a reference genome and a test genome. The DNA samples are differentially labeled and hybridized to an immobilized substrate. In early CGH experiments, the DNA targets were hybridized to metaphase chromosome spreads in FISH assays. This technology later evolved so that the DNA targets are hybridized to microarrays containing cDNA fragments or bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs). Recent commercial offerings from Agilent, Affymetrix and Illumina derive copy number differences using oligonucleotide microarrays representing 500,000 or more loci. In most commercial assays, genomic DNA is labeled and hybridized to microarrays designed for SNP genotyping analyses. Interestingly, Auer et al. has recently shown that expression microarrays, such as the Affymetrix U133 series can also be used to identify copy number differences. In the 2007 Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) Microarray Research Group (MARG) project, we analyzed HL60 DNA with 5 platforms: Agilent, Affymetrix 500K, Affymetrix U133, Illumina, and RPCI BAC arrays. Data obtained from these platforms were assessed for precision and the ability to detect known and novel copy number changes in the HL60 genome. This abstract does not necessarily reflect the views of the EPA. Platform Chromosome Start Position End Position Number of Probes* Segment Mean RPCI BAC 5 53,817,423 139,426,041 491 -0.5315 Agilent 53,787,209 139,475,226 1,003 -0.1914 Illumina 53,729,928 113,350,609 10,438 -0.6753 AffymetrixU133 53,536,915 139,532,618 1212 -0.5862 Affymetrix 500K** 53,925,665 73,549,145 13,886 -0.3785 8 98,584,025 130,781,748 14 1.2942 126,357,705 130,632,571 26 0.3993 126,302,381 130,771,462 428 1.1630 Affymetrix U133 126,335,997 128,498,243 22 1.612 126,000,000 131,000,000 1,192 1.7650 Detection of Known HL60 Gains and Losses  Platform -5q11 -6q12 +8q24 -9p21 -10p12 -14q22 -17p12 Tri 18 MonoX BAC Y N Agilent Affy U133 Affy 500K Illumina 1. Platform Precision: Basis for Coefficient of Variance Analysis- Summary statistics and boxplot generated in Sigmaplot. BAC: CV calculated from HL60/lung ratios in 4 replicates. Agilent: CV calculated from HL60/lung ratios in 4 replicates. Illumina: CV calculated from 4 R values. Affymetrix U133: CV calculated from the 16 possible ratios between the 4 HL60 and 4 lung replicates. Affymetrix 500K: CV calculated separately for the 250K Nsp and 250Sty GeneChips. CV calculated from Intensities calculated from Affymetrix software for 4 NSP CEL files and 4 STY CEL files. These files were augmented from Affymetrix data repository in order to calculate expression summaries and CVs. Detection of Novel* HL60 Gains and Losses  Platform Chr.2 Chr.16 Chr.19 BAC Y N Agilent Affy U133 Affy 500K Illumina *Agreement of at least 2 platforms in the same location span Visualizations: Two Known HL60 Copy Number Changes Experimental Design: Practical Considerations: Comparison of Array CGH Costs BAC 19K Display prepared from CBS Analysis of one replicate Genomic DNA (0.5-3 mg) was isolated from HL60 leukemia cells and human female normal lung. The DNA was distributed to 3 sites for replicate CGH analyses on 5 different platforms. Two platforms used traditional (2-color) CGH methods, where both HL60 and lung targets were hybridized to the same microarray. Three platforms hybridized HL60 or lung targets to separate (1-color) microarrays. Each site relied on platform-specific protocols for target preparation, hybridization, quality review and copy number determination. In most cases, gains and losses were identified based on HL60 to lung signal ratios. For the Illumina and Affymetrix 500K platforms, gains and losses were evaluated by comparing HL60 signals to reference datasets. The probe annotation on all platforms was standardized to sequence information in NCBI build 35 (HG17). Affy GE Platform & Microarray Price per Microarray Price per Target Labeling Process Time RPCI BAC19K $150 $175 1 day Agilent 44K $225 $180 2 days Affymetrix 500K $250 $125 Affymetrix U133 $400 Illumina 550K CV Statistics chr8 -2 -1 1 2 3 chr17 -17p12 +8q24 -17p12 BAC Agilent Illumina Affy GE Affy Nsp Affy Sty Mean 2.13 3.16 5.98 9.64 10.69 9.44 Median 1.96 2.66 5.23 8.71 9.91 8.47 Std Dev 1.09 2.43 3.52 4.78 5.24 5.60 Std Err 0.01 0.00 0.02 Size 18067 42897 555353 54676 524629 476709 Min 0.05 0.71 0.15 Max 16.87 77.89 98.05 59.57 48.97 50.59 Agilent 44K +8q24 Chr 8q amplification Conclusions: All platforms demonstrated good precision between replicates. CVs ranged from 2.1 to 10.7% across the platforms. The two platforms with the largest number of probes, Illumina and Affymetrix 500K, identified 100% of the known losses and gains in HL60 DNA. The three platforms with fewer probes, Agilent, Affymetrix U133 and BAC arrays, identified most (89%) but not all of the known losses and gains in HL60 DNA. When CBS Analysis was used to assess resolution, all platforms detected 100% of the known gains and losses in HL60 DNA. Overall, three novel changes were also detected by various platforms and all platforms found changes in chromosome16. Chr 17p deletion Platform Descriptions Affy 500K Display generated by Partek Software Platform Number of Probes or Probe Sets Test Site Protocol Number of Replicates Primary Data BAC19K ~19,000 in duplicate RPCI 2-color 4 HL60/lung Mean Log2 (test/lref) Agilent ~44,000 MSK (test/ref) AffymetrixU133 ~55,000 CPH 1-color 4 HL60 4 lung Log2(RMA) Affymetrix 500K ~500,000 0 lung Reference database Illumina ~550,000 Log R ratio Chr 8q amplification Chr 17p deletion Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Replicate 4 Illumina 550K +8q24 -17p12 Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Replicate 4 Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Replicate 4 The test sites were either: RPCI, Roswell Park Cancer Institute; MSK, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute Genomic Core; or CPH, Columbus Pediatric Hospital.