REVIEW

Methods of molecular analysis: mutation detection in solid tumours

I M Frayling

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr I M Frayling, Department of Medical Genetics, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK;
ian.frayling{at}addenbrookes.nhs.uk

Most mutation detection techniques are unsuitable for routine use on solid tumours. Important parameters include sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, use of existing resources, and cost. In the UK, < 0.2% of service genetics laboratory activity involves mutation analysis in tumours (usually for family studies), mainly because it is time consuming/labour intensive (thus expensive) and DNA extracted from formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissue is of low quality and yield. The small size of DNA fragments obtained from tissue blocks limits the polymerase chain reaction, the basis of most mutation detection methods. Other, biological, factors include: (1) heterogeneity of mutations within and between tumours, (2) variation in type and site of mutations in any one gene, (3) normal tissue harbouring mutations, (4) few genes are mutated in most of any one tumour type, and (5) few clinically useful correlations with genetic changes have been found. Present research is centred on correlating single gene mutations with various clinicopathological features, but the pattern of mutations in a combination of genes will probably prove more useful. Microsatellite instability, however, appears to be worth testing for in both familial and sporadic tumours, particularly of the colorectum.

Keywords: mutation detection; tumours; microsatellite instability

Abbreviations: ARMS, amplification refractory mutation system; DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; HNPCC, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer; MMR, mismatch repair; MSI, microsatellite instability; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; SSCP, single stranded conformation polymorphism; TGGE, thermal gradient gel electrophoresis

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Jimeno, A., Messersmith, W. A., Hirsch, F. R., Franklin, W. A., Eckhardt, S. G. (2009). KRAS Mutations and Sensitivity to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer: Practical Application of Patient Selection. JCO 27: 1130-1136 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wordsworth, S, Papanicolas, I, Buchanan, J, Frayling, I, Taylor, J, Tomlinson, I (2008). Molecular testing for somatic cancer mutations: a survey of current and future testing in UK laboratories. J. Clin. Pathol. 61: 373-376 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Maekawa, M., Nagaoka, T., Taniguchi, T., Higashi, H., Sugimura, H., Sugano, K., Yonekawa, H., Satoh, T., Horii, T., Shirai, N., Takeshita, A., Kanno, T. (2004). Three-Dimensional Microarray Compared with PCR-Single-Strand Conformation Polymorphism Analysis/DNA Sequencing for Mutation Analysis of K-ras Codons 12 and 13. Clin. Chem. 50: 1322-1327 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Haro, M., del Aguila, C., Fenoy, S., Henriques-Gil, N. (2003). Intraspecies Genotype Variability of the Microsporidian Parasite Encephalitozoon hellem. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41: 4166-4171 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Narla, G., Friedman, S. L., Martignetti, J. A. (2003). Kruppel Cripples Prostate Cancer: KLF6 Progress and Prospects. Am. J. Pathol. 162: 1047-1052 [Full Text]