Human Cell

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–10

High frequency of common DNA copy number abnormalities detected by bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization in 24 breast cancer cell lines

Research Article

Abstract

Breast cancer is a widespread disease in Japan and across the world. Breast cancer cells, as well as most other types of cancer cells, have diverse chromosomal aberrations. Clarifying the character of these chromosomal aberrations should contribute to the development of more suitable therapies, along with the predictions of metastasis and prognosis. Twenty-four breast cancer cell lines were analyzed by bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). The array slide contained duplicate spots of 4030 BAC clone DNAs covering the entire human genome with 1 Mbp resolution. In all 24 breast cancer cell lines, frequent and significant amplifications as well as deletions were detected by BAC array CGH. Common DNA copy number gains, detected in 60% (above 15 cell lines) of the 24 breast cancer cell lines were found in 76 BAC clones, located at 1q, 5p, 8q, 9p, 16p, 17q, and 20q. Moreover, common DNA copy number loss was detected in 136 BAC clones, located at 1q, 2q, 3p, 4p, 6q, 8p, 9p, 11p, 13q, 17p, 18q, 19p, Xp, and Xq. The DNA copy number abnormalities found included abnormality of the well-known oncogene cMYC (8q24.21); however, most of them were not reported to relate to breast cancer. BAC array CGH has great potential to detect DNA copy number abnormalities, and has revealed that breast cancer cell lines have substantial heterogeneity.

Key words

bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization breast cancer breast cancer cell line DNA copy number abnormality heterogeneity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weber BL. Cancer genomics. Cancer Cell 2002; 1: 37–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yoshimoto M, Tada Y, Hori A et al. Improvement in the prognosis of Japanese breast cancer patients from 1946 to 2001 — an institutional review. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34: 457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Suzuki T, Toi M, Saji S et al. Early breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2006; 11: 108–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weigelt B, Peterse JL, van’t Veer LJ. Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 591–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D et al. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992; 258: 818–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Solinas-Toldo S, Lampel S, Stilgenbauer S et al. Matrixbased comparative genomic hybridization: biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1997; 20: 399–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinkel D, Segraves R, Sudar D et al. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet 1998; 20: 207–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pollack JR, Perou CM, Alizadeh AA et al. Genome-wide analysis of DNA copy-number changes using cDNA microarrays. Nat Genet 1999; 23: 41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snijders AM, Nowak N, Segraves R et al. Assembly of microarrays for genome-wide measurement of DNA copy number. Nat Genet 2001; 29: 263–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson SK, deLeeuw RJ, Ishkanian AS, Malloff CA, Lam WL. Methods for high throughput validation of amplified fragment pools of BAC DNA for constructing high resolution CGH arrays. BMC Genomics 2004; 5: 6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osoegawa K, Mammoser AG, Wu C et al. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for sequencing the complete human genome. Genome Res 2001; 11: 483–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buffart TE, Carvalho B, Mons T et al. DNA copy number profiles of gastric cancer precursor lesions. BMC Genomics 2007; 8: 345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nowak NJ, Gaile D, Conroy JM et al. Genome-wide aberrations in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2005; 161: 36–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saito S, Ghosh M, Morita K, Hirano T, Miwa M, Todoroki T. The genetic differences between gallbladder and bile duct cancer cell lines. Oncol Rep 2006; 16: 949–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirasaki S, Noguchi T, Mimori K et al. BAC clones related to prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous carcinoma: an array comparative genomic hybridization study. Oncologist 2007; 12: 406–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miyake N, Shimokawa O, Harada N et al. BAC array CGH reveals genomic aberrations in idiopathic mental retardation. Am J Med Genet A 2006; 140: 205–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fridlyand J, Snijders AM, Ylstra B et al. Breast tumor copy number aberration phenotypes and genomic instability. BMC Cancer 2006; 6: 96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J et al. A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 2006; 10: 515–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shadeo A, Lam WL. Comprehensive copy number profiles of breast cancer cell model genomes. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jonsson G, Staaf J, Olsson E et al. High-resolution genomic profiles of breast cancer cell lines assessed by tiling bac array comparative genomic hybridization. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2007; 46: 543–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naylor TL, Greshock J, Wang Y et al. High resolution genomic analysis of sporadic breast cancer using array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: R1186–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross JS, Fletcher JA, Linette GP et al. The HER-2/neu gene and protein in breast cancer 2003: biomarker and target of therapy. Oncologist 2003; 8: 307–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kawata H, Yamada K, Shou Z, Mizutani T, Miyamoto K. The mouse zinc-fingers and homeoboxes (ZHX) family; ZHX2 forms a heterodimer with ZHX3. Gene 2003; 323: 133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hu S, Zhang M, Lv Z, Bi J, Dong Y, Wen J. Expression of zinc-fingers and homeoboxes 2 in hepatocellular carcinogenesis: a tissue microarray and clinicopathological analysis. Neoplasma 2007; 54: 207–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shtivelman E, Bishop JM. The PVT gene frequently amplifies with MYC in tumor cells. Mol Cell Biol 1989; 9: 1148–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guan Y, Kuo WL, Stilwell JL et al. Amplification of PVT1 contributes to the pathophysiology of ovarian and breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13: 5745–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNeil CM, Sergio CM, Anderson LR et al. c-Myc over-expression and endocrine resistance in breast cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2006; 102: 147–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong KK, deLeeuw RJ, Dosanjh NS et al. A comprehensive analysis of common copy-number variations in human genome. Am J Hum Genet 2007; 80: 91–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hynes NE, Lane HA. ERBB receptors and cancer: the complexity of targeted inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 341–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parkin DM, Fernandez LM. Use of statistics to assess the global burden of breast cancer. Breast J 2006; 12: S70–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Climent J, Garcia JL, Mao JH, Arsuaga J, Perez-Losada J. Characterization of breast cancer by array comparative genomic hybridization. Biochem Cell Biol 2007; 85: 497–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rennstam K, Ahlstedt-Soini M, Baldetorp B et al. Patterns of chromosomal imbalances defines subgroups of breast cancer with distinct clinical features and prognosis. A study of 305 tumors by comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 8861–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harris LN, Broadwater G, Lin NU et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in relation to paclitaxel response and outcomes in women with metastatic disease: results from CALGB 9342. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society and Springer Japan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Gene Technology Research Group, Research Institute for Cell EngineeringNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)IbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations