CpG Islands pp 303-333 | Cite as

An Application-Directed, Versatile DNA FISH Platform for Research and Diagnostics

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1766)


DNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (DNA FISH) has emerged as a powerful microscopy technique that allows a unique view into the composition and arrangement of the genetic material in its natural context—be it the cell nucleus in interphase, or chromosomes in metaphase spreads. The core principle of DNA FISH is the ability of fluorescently labeled DNA probes (either double- or single-stranded DNA fragments) to bind to their complementary sequences in situ in cells or tissues, revealing the location of their target as fluorescence signals detectable with a fluorescence microscope. Numerous variants and improvements of the original DNA FISH method as well as a vast repertoire of applications have been described since its inception more than 4 decades ago. In recent years, the development of many new fluorescent dyes together with drastic advancements in methods for probe generation (Boyle et al., Chromosome Res 19:901–909, 2011; Beliveau et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:21301–21306, 2012; Bienko et al., Nat Methods 10:122–124, 2012), as well as improvements in the resolution of microscopy technologies, have boosted the number of DNA FISH applications, particularly in the field of genome architecture (Markaki et al., Bioessays 34:412–426, 2012; Beliveau et al., Nat Commun 6:7147, 2015). However, despite these remarkable steps forward, choosing which type of DNA FISH sample preparation protocol, probe design, hybridization procedure, and detection method is best suited for a given application remains still challenging for many research labs, preventing a more widespread use of this powerful technology. Here, we present a comprehensive platform to help researchers choose which DNA FISH protocol is most suitable for their particular application. In addition, we describe computational pipelines that can be implemented for efficient DNA FISH probe design and for signal quantification. Our goal is to make DNA FISH a versatile and streamlined technique that can be easily implemented by both research and diagnostic labs.

Key words

DNA fluorescence in situ hybridization High-definition DNA FISH Superresolution microscopy Genome architecture Cytogenetics 


  1. 1.
    Bienko M, Crosetto N, Teytelman L, Klemm S, Itzkovitz S, van Oudenaarden A (2013) A versatile genome-scale PCR-based pipeline for high-definition DNA FISH. Nat Methods 10:122–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyle S, Rodesch MJ, Halvensleben HA, Jeddeloh JA, Bickmore WA (2011) Fluorescence in situ hybridization with high-complexity repeat-free oligonucleotide probes generated by massively parallel synthesis. Chromosom Res 19:901–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beliveau BJ, Joyce EF, Apostolopoulos N, Yilmaz F, Fonseka CY, McCole RB, Chang Y, Li JB, Senaratne TN, Williams BR, Rouillard J-M, Wu C-T (2012) Versatile design and synthesis platform for visualizing genomes with Oligopaint FISH probes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:21301–21306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beliveau BJ, Boettiger AN, Avendaño MS, Jungmann R, McCole RB, Joyce EF, Kim-Kiselak C, Bantignies F, Fonseka CY, Erceg J, Hannan MA, Hoang HG, Colognori D, Lee JT, Shih WM, Yin P, Zhuang X, Wu C-T (2015) Single-molecule super-resolution imaging of chromosomes and in situ haplotype visualization using Oligopaint FISH probes. Nat Commun 6:7147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahl F, Banér J, Gullberg M, Mendel-Hartvig M, Landegren U, Nilsson M (2004) Circle-to-circle amplification for precise and sensitive DNA analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:4548–4553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt TL, Beliveau BJ, Uca YO, Theilmann M, Da Cruz F, Wu C-T, Shih WM (2015) Scalable amplification of strand subsets from chip-synthesized oligonucleotide libraries. Nat Commun 6:8634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moffitt JR, Zhuang X (2016) RNA imaging with multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH). Methods Enzymol 572:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lubeck E, Cai L (2012) Single-cell systems biology by super-resolution imaging and combinatorial labeling. Nat Methods 9:743–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lubeck E, Coskun AF, Zhiyentayev T, Ahmad M, Cai L (2014) Single-cell in situ RNA profiling by sequential hybridization. Nat Methods 11:360–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen KH, Boettiger AN, Moffitt JR, Wang S, Zhuang X (2015) RNA imaging. Spatially resolved, highly multiplexed RNA profiling in single cells. Science 348:aaa6090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang S, Su J-H, Beliveau BJ, Bintu B, Moffitt JR, Wu C-T, Zhuang X (2016) Spatial organization of chromatin domains and compartments in single chromosomes. Science 353:598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sydor AM, Czymmek KJ, Puchner EM, Mennella V (2015) Super-resolution microscopy: from single molecules to supramolecular assemblies. Trends Cell Biol 25:730–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hausmann M, Winkler R, Hildenbrand G, Finsterle J, Weisel A, Rapp A, Schmitt E, Janz S, Cremer C (2003) COMBO-FISH: specific labeling of nondenatured chromatin targets by computer-selected DNA oligonucleotide probe combinations. BioTechniques 35(564–70):572–577Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmitt E, Schwarz-Finsterle J, Stein S, Boxler C, Müller P, Mokhir A, Krämer R, Cremer C, Hausmann M (2010) Combinatorial oligo FISH: directed labeling of specific genome domains in differentially fixed cell material and live cells. In: Bridger JM, Volpi EV (eds) Fluorescence in situ Hybridization (FISH). Humana, Louisville, KY, pp 185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller P, Rößler J, Schwarz-Finsterle J, Schmitt E, Hausmann M (2016) PNA-COMBO-FISH: from combinatorial probe design in silico to vitality compatible, specific labelling of gene targets in cell nuclei. Exp Cell Res 345:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Honig B, Rohs R (2011) Biophysics: flipping Watson and Crick. Nature 470:472–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silahtaroglu A, Pfundheller H, Koshkin A, Tommerup N, Kauppinen S (2004) LNA-modified oligonucleotides are highly efficient as FISH probes. Cytogenet Genome Res 107:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nilsson M, Malmgren H, Samiotaki M, Kwiatkowski M, Chowdhary BP, Landegren U (1994) Padlock probes: circularizing oligonucleotides for localized DNA detection. Science 265:2085–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banér J, Nilsson M, Mendel-Hartvig M, Landegren U (1998) Signal amplification of padlock probes by rolling circle replication. Nucleic Acids Res 26:5073–5078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yaroslavsky AI, Smolina IV (2013) Fluorescence imaging of single-copy DNA sequences within the human genome using PNA-directed padlock probe assembly. Chem Biol 20:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solovei I, Cremer M (2010) 3D-FISH on cultured cells combined with immunostaining. Methods Mol Biol 659:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Markaki Y, Smeets D, Fiedler S, Schmid VJ, Schermelleh L, Cremer T, Cremer M (2012) The potential of 3D-FISH and super-resolution structured illumination microscopy for studies of 3D nuclear architecture: 3D structured illumination microscopy of defined chromosomal structures visualized by 3D (immuno)-FISH opens new perspectives for studies of nuclear architecture. BioEssays 34:412–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solovei I, Cavallo A, Schermelleh L, Jaunin F, Scasselati C, Cmarko D, Cremer C, Fakan S, Cremer T (2002) Spatial preservation of nuclear chromatin architecture during three-dimensional fluorescence in situ hybridization (3D-FISH). Exp Cell Res 276:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu Q, Schlabach MR, Hannon GJ, Elledge SJ (2009) Design of 240,000 orthogonal 25mer DNA barcode probes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:2289–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kozubek M, Matula P (2000) An efficient algorithm for measurement and correction of chromatic aberrations in fluorescence microscopy. J Microsc 200:206–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abraham AV, Ram S, Chao J, Ward ES, Ober RJ (2009) Quantitative study of single molecule location estimation techniques. Opt Express 17:23352–23373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stetson PB (1987) DAOPHOT – a computer program for crowded-field stellar photometry. PASP 99:191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Medical Biochemistry and BiophysicsKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations