4.7 Article

Microsatellite Instability Detection by High-Resolution Melting Analysis

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 11, 页码 1750-1757

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.150680

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lithuanian Science Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is an important marker for screening for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) as well as a prognostic and predictive marker for sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC). The mononucleotide microsatellite marker panel is a well-established and superior alternative to the traditional Bethesda MSI analysis panel, and does not require testing for corresponding normal DNA. The most common MSI detection techniques-fluorescent capillary electrophoresis and denaturing HPLC (DHPLC)-both have advantages and drawbacks. A new high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis method enables rapid identification of heteroduplexes in amplicons by their lower thermal stability, a technique that overcomes the main shortcomings of capillary electrophoresis and DHPLC. METHODS: We investigated the straightforward application of HRM for the detection of MSI in 70 archival CRC samples. HRM analysis for 2 MSI markers (BAT25 and BAT26) was evaluated, and 2 different HRM-enabled instruments were compared-the LightCycler (R) 480 (Roche Diagnostics) and the LightScanner (TM) (Idaho Technology). We also determined the analytical sensitivity and specificity of the HRM assay on both instruments using 11 known MSI-positive and 54 microsatellite-stable CRC samples. RESULTS: All MSI-positive samples were detected on both instruments (100% analytical sensitivity). The LightScanner performed better for analytical specificity, giving a combined specificity value of 99.1% compared with 92.3% on the LightCycler 480. CONCLUSIONS: We expanded the application of the HRM analysis method as an effective MSI detection technique for clinical samples. (C) 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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

4.7
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