4.5 Article

Improved reproducibility in genome-wide DNA methylation analysis for PAXgene-fixed samples compared with restored formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded DNA

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 468, 期 -, 页码 50-58

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2014.09.012

关键词

PAXgene; DNA methylation; Illumina 450K BeadChip; FFPE; DNA restoration; Genome-wide methylation analysis

资金

  1. A.P. Moller and Chastine McKinney Moller Foundation
  2. King Christian X Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formalin fixation has been the standard method for conservation of clinical specimens for decades. However, a major drawback is the high degradation of nucleic acids, which complicates its use in genome-wide analyses. Unbiased identification of biomarkers, however, requires genome-wide studies, precluding the use of the valuable archives of specimens with long-term follow-up data. Therefore, restoration protocols for DNA from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples have been developed, although they are cost-intensive and time-consuming. An alternative to FFPE and snap-freezing is the PAXgene Tissue System, developed for simultaneous preservation of morphology, proteins, and nucleic acids. In the current study, we compared the performance of DNA from either PAXgene or formalin-fixed tissues to snap-frozen material for genome-wide DNA methylation analysis using the Illumina 450K BeadChip. Quantitative DNA methylation analysis demonstrated that the methylation profile in PAXgene-fixed tissues showed, in comparison with restored FFPE samples, a higher concordance with the profile detected in frozen samples. We demonstrate, for the first time, that DNA from PAXgene conserved tissue performs better compared with restored FFPE DNA in genome-wide DNA methylation analysis. In addition, DNA from PAXgene tissue can be directly used on the array without prior restoration, rendering the analytical process significantly more time- and cost-effective. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据