Jörg Weimer

An easy and reliable procedure of microdissection technique for the analysis of chromosomal breakpoints and marker chromosomes.

Microdissection in combination with reverse painting fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) is a very effective method to identify breakpoints and rearrangements of derived chromosomes and reveal the chromosomal origin of marker chromosomes. We describe an innovation that allows a convenient, fast and safe isolation of microdissected fragments as currently available protocols. The microdissected chromosomes are harvested in a collection drop located in a movable micropipette adjusted to a second micromanipulator under microscopic observation. We used this technique to analyze several cytogenetic aberrations. In order to evaluate the efficiency of our microdissection procedure, we compared the results obtained with microdissection probes made from only one fragment with those obtained with more than six microdissected fragments. In all cases, the single- fragment microdissections were sufficient to provide probes.

FISH-microdissection (FISH-MD) analysis of complex chromosome rearrangements

We combined the techniques of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and chromosomal microdissection in one experiment (FISH-MD). This novel method permits rapid identification of the composition, origin, and breakpoints of rearranged chromosomes. Rearranged chromosomes are first identified by multicolor-FISH, then the fluorophore-labeled derivative chromosomes are directly isolated by microdissection and reverse painted to identify the breakpoints.

Reverse painting of microdissected chromosome 19 markers in ovarian carcinoma identifies a complex rearrangement map.

Alterations of chromosome bands 19p13 and 19q13 in the form of added extra material of unknown origin are among the most frequent cytogenetic changes in ovarian carcinomas. To investigate the chromosomal composition of the 19p+ and/or 19q+ markers, we selected for examination 26 ovarian carcinomas which by G‐banding had one to four 19p+ and/or 19q+, in total 37 markers. These cases were then subjected to chromosomal microdissection with subsequent reverse painting, which gave informative results on 29 markers. The breakpoints on chromosome 19 were located in both the short (p; n = 15) and the long (q; n = 10) arms, as well as in the centromeric (n = 2) and pericentromeric (n = 6) region. The analysis showed that many chromosomes added material to chromosome 19, but the chromosome arms 11q, 21q, and 22q were particularly common donors. Homogeneously staining regions (hsr) were seen in only three markers, in all of them consisting of 19p material. Eighteen markers were derived from an unbalanced translocation involving chromosome 19. In five markers, chromosome 19 was rearranged with two chromosomes. The most complex marker showed chromosome 19 rearranged with three other chromosomes, i.e., X, 13, and 16. In five markers, all of the additional material stemmed from chromosome 19 itself. This is the first large chromosome microdissection/FISH study of chromosome 19 markers in ovarian carcinomas. A detailed map of the rearrangements should provide clues to the positions of oncogenes and potential fusion genes important in ovarian carcinogenesis.

Genetic background of different cancer cell lines influences the gene set involved in chromosome 8 mediated breast tumor suppression.

Several lines of evidence suggest that chromosome 8 is likely to harbor tumor‐suppressor genes involved in breast cancer. We showed previously that microcell‐mediated transfer of human chromosome 8 into breast cancer cell line MDA‐MB‐231 resulted in reversion of these cells to tumorigenicity and was accompanied by changes in the expression of a breast cancer–relevant gene set. In the present study, we demonstrated that transfer of human chromosome 8 into another breast cancer cell line, CAL51, strongly reduced the tumorigenic potential of these cells. Loss of the transferred chromosome 8 resulted in reappearance of the CAL51 phenotype. Microarray analysis identified 78 probe sets differentially expressed in the hybrids compared with in the CAL51 and the rerevertant cells. This signature was also reflected in a panel of breast tumors, lymph nodes, and distant metastases and was correlated with several prognostic markers including tumor size, grading, metastatic behavior, and estrogen receptor status. The expression patterns of seven genes highly expressed in the hybrids but down‐regulated in the tumors and metastases (MYH11, CRYAB, C11ORF8, PDGFRL, PLAGL1, SH3BP5, and KIAA1026) were confirmed by RT‐PCR and tissue microarray analyses. Unlike with the corresponding nontumorigenic phenotypes demonstrated for the MDA‐MB‐231‐ and CAL51‐derived microcell hybrids, the respective differentially expressed genes strongly differed. However, the majority of genes in both gene sets could be integrated into a similar spectrum of biological processes and pathways, suggesting that alterations in gene expression are manifested at the level of functions and pathways rather than in individual genes.

Comparison of comparative genomic hybridization and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization in ovarian carcinomas: possibilities and limitations of both techniques

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a valuable technique for cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. To evaluate the reliability of CGH, we examined DNA of 10 ovarian carcinomas after CGH analysis with single- and double-locus fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The FISH experiments, involving 5 chromosomes (chromosomes 3, 6, 8, 12, and 18) with different FISH probes, confirmed the CGH results in 66.2% of cases (92 of 139 investigated loci). In 4 patients, inconsistent results (41 loci) were related to polyploidy, because CGH cannot detect polyploid karyotypes. The remaining 6 discordant loci can be referred to limitations in both techniques. Re-evaluation of FISH and CGH results by one other is therefore recommended to overcome these technical artifacts. Nevertheless, CGH is of potential value in characterizing chromosomal alterations and might help in generating tumor-specific sets of FISH probes to obtain genetic information of prognostic value within a few days.

Genetic characteristics of the human hepatic stellate cell line LX-2.

The human hepatic cell line LX-2 has been described as tool to study mechanisms of hepatic fibrogenesis and the testing of antifibrotic compounds. It was originally generated by immortalisation with the Simian Vacuolating Virus 40 (SV40) transforming (T) antigen and subsequent propagation in low serum conditions. Although this immortalized line is used in an increasing number of studies, detailed genetic characterisation has been lacking. We here have performed genetic characterisation of the LX-2 cell line and established a single-locus short tandem repeat (STR) profile for the cell line and characterized the LX-2 karyotype by several cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic techniques. Spectral karyotyping (SKY) revealed a complex karyotype with a set of aberrations consistently present in the metaphases analyses which might serve as cytogenetic markers. In addition, various subclonal and single cell aberrations were detected. Our study provides criteria for genetic authentication of LX-2 and offers insights into the genotype changes which might underlie part of its phenotypic features.

Array-CGH analysis of microdissected chromosome 19 markers in ovarian carcinoma identifies candidate target genes.

Alterations of chromosome 19 are among the most frequent cytogenetic changes in ovarian carcinomas. They usually occur as added extra material of unknown origin to 19p or, less frequently, 19q but sometimes as homogeneously staining regions. The precise nature of these markers, i.e., exactly which regions of chromosome 19 are involved and from which chromosome(s) the additional material comes, could only rarely be established. We have investigated by high resolution array‐CGH a series of 29 chromosome 19 markers after previous microdissection of ovarian carcinoma metaphases followed by FISH to determine where in chromosome 19 the rearrangements took place as well as from which partner chromosomes the additional material stems, obtaining informative results on 23 markers from 18 carcinomas. Along the entire chromosome 19, a total of nine regions were found gained in 10 or more carcinomas (from 10 to 16) whereas 15 regions were gained in 6 to 10 markers. The most commonly gained region (16 markers) was observed in 19p13 between 20.80 Mbp and 20.85 Mbp from 19pter. According to the human genome 18 (hg18) NCBI 36, a total of 43 genes reside in the most commonly gained regions. Most of them (n = 31) code for zinc finger proteins. None of these genes is known to be involved in human neoplasia (the only exception is the ZNF91, which is found highly expressed in seminomas) but their frequent gain in the examined tumors makes all of them candidates for a pathogenetic role in ovarian carcinogenesis.

Delineation of a complex karyotypic rearrangement by microdissection and CGH in a family affected with split foot

We report on a male patient and members of his family with additional material in chromosome 3. This derivative chromosome 3 was transmitted from his mother who had a complex rearrangement between chromosomes 2, 3, and 7. It was possible to delineate her chromosomal rearrangement by microdissection and reverse painting and to exclude these aberrations from being responsible for neonatal deaths and several abortions in this family. Two members of this family suffer from ectrodactyly or split hand/foot malformations (SHFM) of the feet which possibly correlates with the derivative chromosome 7 containing a breakpoint in the SHFM1 critical region involving several homeobox genes.

Proof of partial imbalances 6q and 11q due to maternal complex balanced translocation analyzed by microdissection of multicolor labeled chromosomes (FISH-MD) in a patient with Dandy-Walker variant

We report on a family in which a daughter is described with mental retardation, as well as malformations of the heart, and of the brain (Dandy-Walker variant). The patient’s phenotype suggests a chromosomal rearrangement. However, her karyotype was unremarkable by conventional cytogenetic analysis. In order to detect chromosome rearrangements overseen by this method, the subtelomere regions of suspicious chromosomes were verified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). A rearranged derivative chromosome 6 was identified. Further examinations by FISH-microdissection (FISH-MD) revealed a maternal complex balanced translocation. The patient inherited the derivative chromosome 6 from her mother and therefore carries a partial monosomy 6q26→qter and a partial trisomy 11q23.3→qter.

A network of clinically and functionally relevant genes is involved in the reversion of the tumorigenic phenotype of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells after transfer of human chromosome 8

Several investigations have supposed that tumor suppressor genes might be located on human chromosome 8. We used microcell-mediated transfer of chromosome 8 into MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells and generated independent hybrids with strongly reduced tumorigenic potential. Loss of the transferred chromosome results in reappearance of the malignant phenotype. Expression analysis identified a set of 109 genes (CT8-ps) differentially expressed in microcell hybrids as compared to the tumorigenic MDA-MB-231 and rerevertant cells. Of these, 44.9% are differentially expressed in human breast tumors. The expression pattern of CT8-ps was associated with prognostic factors such as tumor size and grading as well as loss of heterozygosity at the short arm of chromosome 8. We identified CT8-ps networks suggesting that these genes act cooperatively to cause reversion of tumorigenicity in MDA-MB-231 cells. Our findings provide a conceptual basis and experimental system to identify and evaluate genes and gene networks involved in the development and/or progression of breast cancer.