A Comparison of DNA Copy Number Profiling Platforms

^{1 1}Translational Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; ²Center for Applied Cancer Science, the Belfer Institute for Innovative Cancer Science and ³Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; ⁴Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and ⁵Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lynda_chin{at}dfci.harvard.edu.

	Abstract

The accurate mapping of recurring DNA copy number aberrations (CNAs), a hallmark feature of the cancer genome, has facilitated the discovery of tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Microarray-based assays designed to detect these chromosomal copy number alterations on a genome-wide and high-resolution scale have emerged as a cornerstone technology in the genomic era. The diversity of commercially available platforms prompted a systematic comparison of five copy number profiling assays for their ability to detect 2-fold copy number gain and loss (4n or 1n, respectively) as well as focal high-amplitude CNAs. Here, using a collection of established human melanoma cell lines, we defined the reproducibility, absolute signals, signal to noise, and false-positive and false-negative rates for each of the five assays against ground truth defined by spectral karyotyping, in addition to comparing the concordance of CNA detection by two high-resolution Agilent and Affymetrix microarray platforms. Our analyses concluded that the Agilent's 60-mer oligonucleotide microarray with probe design optimized for genomic hybridization offers the highest sensitivity and specificity (area under receiver operator characteristic curve >0.99), whereas Affymetrix's single nucleotide polymorphism microarray seems to offer better detection of CNAs in gene-poor regions. Availability of these comparison results should guide study design decisions and facilitate further computational development. [Cancer Res 2007;67(21):10173–80]

Key Words: comparative genomic hybridization, oligonucleotide microarray platforms, comparison, sensitivity and specificity, reproducibility

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H.-Q. Qu, K. Jacob, S. Fatet, B. Ge, D. Barnett, O. Delattre, D. Faury, A. Montpetit, L. Solomon, P. Hauser, et al. Genome-wide profiling using single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays identifies novel chromosomal imbalances in pediatric glioblastomas Neuro Oncology, October 15, 2009; (2009) nop001v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. S. Nagaraj Evolving 'omics' technologies for diagnostics of head and neck cancer Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic, March 9, 2009; (2009) elp004v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. P. Coe, C. MacAulay, W. L. Lam, B. Ylstra, B. Carvalho, and G. A. Meijer Comment re: A Comparison of DNA Copy Number Profiling Platforms Cancer Res., May 15, 2008; 68(10): 4010 - 4010. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Greshock, J. Cheng, D. Rusnak, A. M. Martin, R. Wooster, T. Gilmer, K. Lee, B. L. Weber, and T. Zaks Genome-wide DNA copy number predictors of lapatinib sensitivity in tumor-derived cell lines Mol. Cancer Ther., April 1, 2008; 7(4): 935 - 943. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Yang, R. R. Almon, D. C. DuBois, W. J. Jusko, and I. P. Androulakis Extracting Global System Dynamics of Corticosteroid Genomic Effects in Rat Liver J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., March 1, 2008; 324(3): 1243 - 1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]