Array-based comparative genomic hybridization of mapped BAC DNA clones to screen for chromosome 14 copy number abnormalities in meningiomas

Array comparative genomic hybridization: an overview of protocols, applications, and technology trends

From the earliest observations of human chromosomes in the late 1800s to modern day next generation sequencing technologies, much has been learned about human cancers by the vigorous application of the techniques of the day. In general, resolution has improved tremendously, and correspondingly the size of the datasets generated has grown exponentially such that computational methods required to handle massive datasets have had to be devised. This chapter provides a brief synopsis of the evolution of such techniques as an introduction to the subsequent chapters that provide methods and applications, relevant to research, and clinical diagnostics.

Delineation of commonly deleted chromosomal regions in meningiomas by high-density single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping arrays

Despite recent advances in the identification of the cytogenetic profiles of meningiomas, a significant group of tumors still show normal karyotypes or few chromosomal changes. The authors analyzed the cytogenetic profile of 50 meningiomas using fluorescence in situ hybridization and high-density (500 K) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. Our results confirm that del(22q) (52%) and del(1p) (16%) (common deleted regions: 22q11.21-22q13.3. and 1p31.2-p36.33) are the most frequent alterations. Additionally, recurrent monosomy 14 (8%), del(6q) (10%), del(7p) (10%), and del(19q) (4%) were observed, while copy number patterns consistent with recurrent chromosomal gains, gene amplification, and copy number neutral loss of heterozygosity (cnLOH) were either absent or rare. Based on their overall SNP profiles, meningiomas could be classified into: (i) diploid cases, (ii) meningiomas with a single chromosomal change [e.g., monosomy 22/del(22q)] and (iii) tumors with ≥2 altered chromosomes. In summary, our results confirm and extend on previous observations showing that the most recurrent chromosomal abnormalities in meningiomas correspond to chromosome losses localized in chromosomes 1, 22 and less frequently in chromosomes 6, 7, 14, and 19, while chromosomal gains and cnLOH are restricted to a small proportion of cases. Finally, a set of cancer-associated candidate genes associated with the TP53, MYC, CASP3, HDAC1, and TERT signaling pathways was identified, in cases with coexisting monosomy 14 and del(1p).

Genomic profiling distinguishes familial multiple and sporadic multiple meningiomas

Background

Meningiomas may occur either as familial tumors in two distinct disorders, familial multiple meningioma and neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2), or sporadically, as either single or multiple tumors in individuals with no family history. Meningiomas in NF2 and approximately 60% of sporadic meningiomas involve inactivation of the NF2 locus, encoding the tumor suppressor merlin on chromosome 22q. This study was undertaken to establish whether genomic profiling could distinguish familial multiple meningiomas from sporadic solitary and sporadic multiple meningiomas.

Methods

We compared 73 meningiomas presenting as sporadic solitary (64), sporadic multiple (5) and familial multiple (4) tumors using genomic profiling by array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH).

Results

Sporadic solitary meningiomas revealed genomic rearrangements consistent with at least two mechanisms of tumor initiation, as unsupervised cluster analysis readily distinguished tumors with chromosome 22 deletion (associated with loss of the NF2 tumor suppressor) from those without chromosome 22 deletion. Whereas sporadic meningiomas without chromosome 22 loss exhibited fewer chromosomal imbalance events overall, tumors with chromosome 22 deletion further clustered into two major groups that largely, though not perfectly, matched with their benign (WHO Grade I) or advanced (WHO Grades II and III) histological grade, with the latter exhibiting a significantly greater degree of genomic imbalance (P < 0.001). Sporadic multiple meningiomas showed a frequency of genomic imbalance events comparable to the atypical grade solitary tumors. By contrast, familial multiple meningiomas displayed no imbalances, supporting a distinct mechanism for the origin for these tumors.

Conclusion

Genomic profiling can provide an unbiased adjunct to traditional meningioma classification and provides a basis for exploring the different genetic underpinnings of tumor initiation and progression. Most importantly, the striking difference observed between sporadic and familial multiple meningiomas indicates that genomic profiling can provide valuable information for differential diagnosis of subjects with multiple meningiomas and for considering the risk for tumor occurrence in their family members.