Directional Genomic Hybridization (dGH) for Detection of Intrachromosomal Rearrangements

  • Erin Robinson
  • Miles J. McKenna
  • Joel S. Bedford
  • Edwin H. Goodwin
  • Michael N. Cornforth
  • Susan M. BaileyEmail author
  • F. Andrew Ray
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1984)


Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH) techniques, including whole chromosome painting (WCP), spectral karyotyping (SKY), and multicolor FISH (mFISH), are used extensively to characterize and enumerate inter-chromosomal rearrangements (e.g., translocations). Directional genomic hybridization (dGH) is a relatively new cytogenomics-based methodology that combines the strand-specific strategy of Chromosome Orientation-FISH (CO-FISH) with bioinformatics-driven design of single-stranded DNA probe sets that are unique and of like orientation. Such a strategy produces directional probe sets that hybridize to one—and only one—chromatid of prepared (single-stranded) metaphase chromosomes, thereby facilitating high-resolution visualization of intra-chromosomal rearrangements, specifically inversions, and greatly improving our ability to detect such otherwise cryptic structural variants within the genome. In addition to its usefulness in the study of various disease states, including cancer, relevant applications of dGH include monitoring cytogenetic damage caused by exposure to clastogenic agents (e.g., ionizing radiation). dGH can be applied as a discovery tool to globally assess the integrity of the genome, but it can also be used in a more targeted fashion to interrogate fine structural changes at the kilobase level. Consequently, dGH is capable of providing significant mechanistic insight and information not easily obtainable by other approaches.

Key words

Directional genomic hybridization (dGH) Chromosome orientation-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (CO-FISH) Chromosomal inversions Biodosimetry 



The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Colorado State University College Research Council, NASA (NNX09CE42P, NNX10CB05C, NNX12AM92G), and NIH (RO1AI080486-02).


  1. 1.
    Ray FA, Zimmerman E, Robinson B, Cornforth MN, Bedford JS, Goodwin EH, Bailey SM (2013) Directional genomic hybridization for chromosomal inversion discovery and detection. Chromosom Res 21:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ray FA, Robinson E, McKenna M, Hada M, George K, Cucinotta F, Goodwin EH, Bedford JS, Bailey SM, Cornforth MN (2014) Directional genomic hybridization: inversions as a potential biodosimeter for retrospective radiation exposure. Radiat Environ Biophys 53:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muhlmann-Diaz MC, Bedford JS (1995) Comparison of gamma-ray-induced chromosome ring and inversion frequencies. Radiat Res 143:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feuk L (2010) Inversion variants in the human genome: role in disease and genome architecture. Genome Med 2:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lansdorp PM, Falconer E, Tao J, Brind’Amour J, Naumann U (2012) Epigenetic differences between sister chromatids? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1266:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Prosser JS, Barjaktarovic N, Brown JK, Horvat D, Ismail SR, Koteles GJ, Almassy Z, Krepinsky A et al (1987) A collaborative exercise on cytogenetic dosimetry for simulated whole and partial body accidental irradiation. Mutat Res 179:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICRU (2002) International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Retrospective assessment of exposures to ionising radiation, ICRU Report 68Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IAEA (2001) International Atomic Energy Agency. Cytogenetic analysis for radiation dose assessment, a manual. 127Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leonard A, Rueff J, Gerber GB, Leonard ED (2005) Usefulness and limits of biological dosimetry based on cytogenetic methods. Radiat Prot Dosim 115:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tucker JD (2001) Fish cytogenetics and the future of radiation biodosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosim 97:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pinto MM, Santos NF, Amaral A (2010) Current status of biodosimetry based on standard cytogenetic methods. Radiat Environ Biophys 49:567–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tucker JD (2008) Low-dose ionizing radiation and chromosome translocations: a review of the major considerations for human biological dosimetry. Mutat Res 659:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sigurdson AJ, Ha M, Hauptmann M, Bhatti P, Sram RJ, Beskid O, Tawn EJ, Whitehouse CA, Lindholm C, Nakano M et al (2008) International study of factors affecting human chromosome translocations. Mutat Res 652:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loucas BD, Cornforth MN (2001) Complex chromosome exchanges induced by gamma rays in human lymphocytes: an mFISH study. Radiat Res 155:660–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cucinotta FA, Kim MH, Willingham V, George KA (2008) Physical and biological organ dosimetry analysis for international space station astronauts. Radiat Res 170:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    George K, Durante M, Wu H, Willingham V, Badhwar G, Cucinotta FA (2001) Chromosome aberrations in the blood lymphocytes of astronauts after space flight. Radiat Res 156:731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cornforth MN, Anur P, Wang N, Robinson E, Ray FA, Bedford JS, Loucas BD, Williams ES, Peto M, Spellman P, Kollipara R, Kittler R, Gray JW, Bailey SM (2018) Molecular Cytogenetics Guides Massively Parallel Sequencing of a Radiation-Induced Chromosome Translocation in Human Cells. Radiat Res 190(1):88–97. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radiat Res. 2018 Jul;190(1):88-97. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erin Robinson
    • 1
  • Miles J. McKenna
    • 2
  • Joel S. Bedford
    • 2
  • Edwin H. Goodwin
    • 1
  • Michael N. Cornforth
    • 3
  • Susan M. Bailey
    • 2
    Email author
  • F. Andrew Ray
    • 2
  1. 1.KromaTiD Inc.Fort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Radiological Health SciencesColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations