Open Access

Comprehensive chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnostics by combined multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH)

  • Eyad Alhourani1,
  • Martina Rincic1, 2,
  • Moneeb AK Othman1,
  • Beate Pohle1,
  • Cordula Schlie1,
  • Anita Glaser1 and
  • Thomas Liehr1Email author
Molecular Cytogenetics20147:79

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-014-0079-2

Received: 19 September 2014

Accepted: 23 October 2014

Published: 19 November 2014

Abstract

Background

Banding-karyotyping and metaphase-directed-fluorescence-in-situhybridization (FISH) may be hampered by low mitotic index in leukemia. Interphase FISH (iFISH) is a way out here, however, testing many probes at the same time is protracted and expensive. Here multiplex-ligation-dependent-probe-amplification (MLPA) was used retrospectively in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) samples initially studied by banding cytogenetics and iFISH. Detection rates of iFISH and MLPA were compared and thus a cost-efficient scheme for routine diagnostics is proposed.

Results

Banding cytogenetics was done successfully in 67/85 samples. DNA was extracted from all 85 CLL samples. A commercially available MLPA probe set directed against 37 loci prone to be affected in hematological malignancies was applied. Besides, routine iFISH was done by commercially available probes for following regions: 11q22.3, 12p11.2-q11.1, 13q14.3, 13q34, 14q32.33 and 17p13.1. MLPA results were substantiated by iFISH using corresponding locus-specific probes.

Aberrations were detected in 67 of 85 samples (~79%) applying banding cytogenetics, iFISH and MLPA. A maximum of 8 aberrations was detected per sample; however, one aberration per sample was found most frequently. Overall 163 aberrations were identified. 15 of those (~9%) were exclusively detected by banding cytogenetics, 95 were found by MLPA (~58%) and 100 (~61%) by routine iFISH. MLPA was not able to distinguish reliably between mono- and biallelic del(13)(q14.3q14.3), which could be easily identified as well as quantified by routine iFISH. Also iFISH was superior to MLPA in samples with low tumor cell load. On the other hand MLPA detected additional aberrations in 22 samples, two of them being without any findings after routine iFISH.

Conclusions

Both MLPA and routine iFISH have comparable detection rates for aberrations being typically present in CLL. As MLPA can detect also rare chromosomal aberrations it should be used as an initial test if routine cytogenetics is not possible or non-informative. Still iFISH should be used additionally to distinguish mono- from biallelic deletions and also to determine rate of mosaicism for 13q14.2 to 13q14.3. In case MLPA is negative the corresponding CLL samples should be tested at least by iFISH using the standard probe set to.

Keywords

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) Chromosomal aberrations Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)

Background

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is considered as the most common adult leukemia in Western countries with an estimated incidence of 5.8 in men and of 3.0 in women per 100,000 individuals and per year. It predominantly affects persons with more than 50years of age [1],[2]. A hallmark of CLL is the presence of cytogenetic abnormalities; the latter help to estimate a patient’s prognosis more accurately and also may provide insights into disease pathogenesis [3]. However, banding cytogenetics can only detect aberrations in ~30% of CLL samples [4]. Still, according to molecular (cyto)genetic data the major recurrent aberrations are:
  1. (i)

    Deletions in 13q14 (50-60% of the samples) associated with a good prognosis, as are deletions in 14q32.33 (12-15% of the samples);

     
  2. (ii)

    Trisomy 12 (15-25%) associated with intermediate prognosis; and

     
  3. (iii)

    Deletions in 11q22 (ATM) (10-20%) or 17p13 (TP53) (5-10%) and/or recurrent balanced translocations go together with adverse prognosis [4]-[9];

     
  4. (iv)

    Less frequently observed aberrations in CLL are deletions in 6q associated with intermediate prognosis, 9p21 and 10q23, total or partial trisomies of chromosomes 3, 8, 18, or 19, and duplications in 2p24, the prognostic significance for these aberrations is unknown [1],[10],[11].

     

These aberrations were either detected applying cytogenetics and/or interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (iFISH) [3] or more recently multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) [7]. While iFISH provides information only for a limited number of genomic targets at the same time [1],[5],[7] MLPA can detect copy number alterations, methylation pattern changes and/or even point mutations simultaneously in multiple target regions [7],[12]. Still iFISH can more reliably detect low level mosaics and mosaics of mono- and biallelic deletions [13].

In this study the efficiency of MLPA was compared with yet in our lab routinely performed cytogenetic and iFISH diagnostics of CLL. Based on the obtained results a new diagnostic scheme is proposed combining MLPA and iFISH leading to a more comprehensive characterization of each individual sample.

Results

85 samples of patients suffering from CLL (Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Table S2) were studied here. Overall, including results from all here applied tests, chromosomal aberrations were detected in 70/85 (~85%) of the studied CLL-samples (Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Table S2). As summarized in Figure 1 between 0 and 8 aberrations were detectable per case. One chromosomal rearrangement per sample could be found most often (40%), followed by no aberration at all and three aberrations per sample. Four or more aberrations per sample were found in less then 10% of the cases.
Figure 1

Number of aberrations present per sample as found in this study after application of all mentioned methods (banding cytogenetics, iFISH and MLPA) – values given in percent.

Overall, 163 aberrations were detected in the 85 studied samples (Table 1, Additional file 2: Table S2). Cytogenetics revealed aberrant karyotypes in 15 (~22%) of the 67 samples where corresponding analyses was successful (Additional file 1: Table S1). In parts the cytogenetic findings could be substantiated by iFISH and or MLPA. As no corresponding probes were included neither in routine iFISH nor in MLPA, 15 (~9%) of the 163 detected aberrations were found additionally by cytogenetics (Table 2). Interestingly, in sample 57 which presented with 5 chromosomal aberrations after banding cytogenetics no aberrations could be detected at all by iFISH or by MLPA. Other samples gave either no, a normal cytogenetic result or a result which also was confirmed by MLPA and/or iFISH (Additional file 1: Table S1).
Table 1

Summary of 99 aberrations as detected by MLPA and 146 ones as detected or confirmed by iFISH; samples contributing to the discordant results of MLPA and iFISH are marked with asterisk *, ** or ‘plus-sign’ +

Affected regions

Genes

Detected in MLPA

Detected in iFISH

amp(2)(p24.3p24.3)

MYCN

3

3

amp(2)(p23.2 ~ 23.1p23.2 ~ 23.1)

ALK

3

3

del(6)(q21q21)

FYN

1

1

del(6)(q23.3q23.3)

MYB

2

2

del(6)(q25.1q25.1)

ESR1

1

1

del(6)(q27q27)

SMOC2

1

1

amp(6)(q27q27)

SMOC2

1+

0

amp(8)(q24.21q24.21)

MYC

1

1

t(9;22)(q34;q11)

BCR and ABL

n.a.

1

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

12

14*

+12

ETV6, CCND2,

4

6*

 

MDM2

  

del(13)(q14.2q14.2)

RB1

10

11**

del(13)(q14.2q14.2)x2

RB1

1

10**

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2,

35

46*/**

 

MIR15A

  

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)x2

DLEU1, DLEU2,

7

14**

 

MIR15A

  

del(14)(q32q32)

IGH

n.a.

13

rea(14)(q32.33) - > t(14;?)

IGH

n.a.

2

rea(14)(q32.33) - > ? + 14

IGH

n.a.

1

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

9

10*

amp(17)(q25.1q25.2)

UNC13D

2

2

amp(18)(p11.21q11.21)

DCC

2+

1

amp(18)(q21.2q21.2)

RNMT

2+

1

amp(21)(q22.12q22.12)

RUNX1

2

2

Those with * are detailed in Table 2, those with ** in Table 4. Those with + could either not be tested in iFISH due to lack of corresponding probe or, in the two of the tested samples MLPA could not be confirmed by iFISH (routine and confirmatory together), most likely due to too large FISH-probe size.

Table 2

Aberrations only detected by banding cytogenetics in 9 samples of the present study

Sample number

Aberration only visible in GTG-banding [%]

1

del(5)(p1?3)[33]

32

-Y[44]

34

-Y[50]

38

t(3;?)(p21;?)[43]

41

-Y[80]

57

der(1)t(1;4)(q1?2;q?31)[90]

 

der(4)t(4;?10)(q?31;q24)[90]

 

?der(10)t(10;16)(q24;p?11.2)[90]

 

der(15)t(1;15)(q1?2;q1?2)[90]

 

der(16)t(15;16)(q1?2;p?11.2)[90]

58

der(2)t(2;13)(q?37;q?14)[21]

 

?del(6)(p?23)[21]

61

t(3;?)(q2?9;?)[22]

 

−7[22]

70

?add(1q)(q4)[50]

Concerning the detection rates, the applied MLPA test found ~58% and routine iFISH ~61% of the 163 aberrations (Table 1, Additional file 2: Table S2). del(13)(q14.3q14.3) was most frequently found, i.e. in ~28% of the samples), followed by del(11)(q22.3q22.3) in ~9%, del(14)(q32q32) in ~8%, and del(13)(q14.2q14.2) and del(17)(p13.1p13.1) in ~6% of the samples, each.

Discordant results of MLPA and routine iFISH were in parts due to the different target regions covered by the tests; thus e.g. del(14)(q32q32) were only detectable by routine iFISH. On the other hand, MLPA detected additional aberrations in 22 samples, three of the patients being without any aberrant findings according to routine iFISH (Additional file 2: Table S2, cases 6870).

In Table 3 thirteen samples are listed, which had low level mosaic aberrations based on routine iFISH and were not picked up by MLPA. In contrary in Table 4 twelve other samples with similar low level mosaics are listed, which were picked up by MLPA.
Table 3

Detailed results in samples contributing to the discordant results of MLPA and iFISH marked with asterisk * in Table 1

Affected regions

Genes

Sample number

iFISH mosaic [%]

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

1

30

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

2

33

+12

ETV6, CCND2, MDM2

3

15

+12

ETV6, CCND2, MDM2

4

31

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

5

18

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

6

10

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

7

10.5

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

8

12

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

9

18.5

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

10

25

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

11

34

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

12

34

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

13

11.5

Table 4

Detailed results in samples with concordance of MLPA and routine iFISH results but mosaic rates below 40% according to iFISH

Affected regions

Genes

Sample number

iFISH mosaic [%]

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

14

23.5

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

15

24

del(11)(q22.3q22.3)

ATM

16

11

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

1

30

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

2

18

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

4

20

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

14

34

del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

DLEU1, DLEU2, MIR15A

17

20

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

1

16

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

12

21

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

18

19

del(17)(p13.1p13.1)

TP53

19

36

Table 5 highlights 19 samples which were detected as carrying deletions in 13q14.2 and/or 13q14.3 according to MLPA and iFISH. Still iFISH revealed that there was a mix of monoallelic and biallelic deletion or only biallelic deletion, which could not always be detected by MLPA (Additional file 2: Table S2). Only such cases which had 100% biallelic deletions could be identified undoubtedly (e.g. sample 30); others showed biallelic deletions in MLPA but were indeed a mix of mono- and biallelic ones.
Table 5

Combination of biallelic and/or monoallelic deletion del(13)(q14.2q14.2) and del(13)(q14.3q14.3) – which is not clearly resolved by MLPA

Sample number

iFISH mosaic [%] del(13)(q14.2q14.2)

iFISH mosaic [%] del(13)(q14.3q14.3)

Monoallelic deletion

Biallelic deletion

Monoallelic deletion

Biallelic deletion

2

0

0

18

14

4

45

0

20

0

12

52

38

34

0

13

0

0

0

98.5

20

0

0

0

94

21

50

30

0

91

22

0

0

5

75

23

0

0

5

81

24

36

41

16

71

25

66

21

18

77

26

0

0

25

65

27

34

27

36.5

24

28

0

0

81

7

29

58

24

86

9

30

0

0

0

100

54

41

39

97

0

55

73

5

85

0

56

22

58

12

66

63

51

38

90

0

Finally, three copy number alterations found by MLPA could not be substantiated by additional iFISH studies (samples 65–67; Additional file 2: Table S2).

In Figure 2 a flow is suggested how a CLL-characterization could be performed most comprehensively and straight forward. Figure 3 shows how cases would have been grouped if only cytogenetics, only MLPA or only iFISH would have been done. Tables 6, 7 and 8 highlights how a step by step characterization and corresponding new results of would change the prognosis of the 95 studied cases.
Figure 2

Suggestion how to proceed when doing MLPA as a primary test after GTG-banding: in case MLPA finds a tumor marker with adverse prognosis no further iFISH analyses is necessary. In case of an MLPA result suggesting intermediate, unclear or good iFISH for 3 to 6 target regions should be done. A probe for 6q may be also used; however, as case with a del(6q) are rare we would not recommend it at present as really indicated to be applied. According to the obtained results cases need to be regrouped. Finally, iFISH can be used to subclassify cases with good prognosis into such with favorable and unfavorable good prognosis.

Figure 3

Detection rates of cytogenetics, MLPA and iFISH as standalone approaches are depicted and compared with overall result combining all three tests as suggested in Figure 2 ; the corresponding results obtained in the 85 cases were aligned with and are expressed as the resulting prognostic relevance of the identified chromosomal aberrations.

Table 6

Samples from Additional file 2: Table S2 are listed according to the groups suggested in Figure 2

Results according to MLPA

Adverse prognosis

Intermediate or unclear prognosis

Good prognosis including groups “favorable” and “unfavorable”

No aberrations

Samples

1, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 54, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65,

5, 37, 62, 68

2*, 4*, 13*, 20*, 21*, 22*, 23*, 25*, 26*, 27*, 28*, 29*, 30*, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55*, 56*, 66, 67, 69

3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 31, 32, 33, 36, 57, 59, 60, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Number of samples per group (absolute)

20

4

32

29

Number of samples per group (percent)

23.5

5

37.5

34

Samples marked with * have biallelic deletion in 13q14 as substantiated by iFISH or deletion of 13q14.2 and 13q14.3, thus going from favorable to unfavorable subgroup within good prognosis group after iFISH (see Table 7). Figures printed not bold and not in italics are case numbers; figures printed bold and in italics are absolute numbers of samples or same numbers in percent.

Table 7

Regrouping of samples from Table 6 after doing additional i-FISH as suggested in Figure 2

Results according to MLPA

Adverse prognosis

Intermediate prognosis

Good prognosis “unfavorable”

Good prognosis “favorable”

No aberrations

Samples

1+, 2, 3+, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 54, 58, 60+, 61, 63, 64, 65,

4, 5, 37, 62, 68

20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 66, 67

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 59, 69

36, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Number of samples per group (absolute)

24

5

25

13

18

Number of samples per group (percent)

28

6

30

15

21

Samples marked with + have rea(14)(q32.33), thus they have to go to the adverse prognosis group. Samples with deletion of 13q14.2 and 13q14.3 detected by MLPA and/or deletion of 13q14.3 in ≥70% of the nuclei detected by iFISH go to unfavorable subgroup within good prognosis group. Figures printed not bold and not in italics are case numbers; figures printed bold and in italics are absolute numbers of samples or same numbers in percent.

Table 8

Final result after including result of GTG-banding based on from Tables 6 and 7

Results according to MLPA

Adverse prognosis

Intermediate or unclear prognosis

Good prognosis

“unfavorable”

Good prognosis “favorable”

No aberrations

Samples

1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 54, 57*, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 70*

4, 5, 36*, 37, 62, 68

20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 66, 67

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 59, 69

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Number of samples per group (absolute)

26

6

25

13

15

Number of samples per group (percent)

31

7

30

15

17

Samples marked with * have additional aberration not detectable by MLPA or routine iFISH. Figures printed not bold and not in italics are case numbers; figures printed bold and in italics are absolute numbers of samples or same numbers in percent.

Discussion

When diagnostic screening for acquired genetic alteration in hematological malignancies is to be done, banding cytogenetics is still the gold standard, as it enables the untargeted search for gross chromosomal aberrations [14]. Malignant CLL cells derived from bone marrow are known to have a low mitotic index and in many cases only cytogenetically normal cells can be analyzed [4]. Thus, iFISH and MLPA are routinely applied additionally to or even as a replacement in tumorcytogenetics of CLL [7],[15].

In this study, after directed diagnostics for 37 genetic loci (MLPA and routine iFISH together), still ~18% of the samples remained without an identified tumor marker. As highlighted by samples 32, 34, 41, 36 (see as well [16]) 38, 57, 58, 61 and 70 this can be due to unusual, not by targeted routine tests covered chromosomal aberrations; besides submicroscopic aberrations like point mutations [2] could be present in those ‘normal’ samples. Interestingly, in over 40% of the studied cases more than only one chromosomal aberration was identified (Figure 1). This may reflect in parts the slow progress of CLL. I.e. the malignancy is detected after acquiring multiple aberrations and not as early as e.g. chronic myelogeneous leukemia (CML), which is already connected with severe clinical signs when only a t(9;22) is found, which is the only aberration in majority of the CML-cases [17].

As mentioned above, MLPA and routine iFISH are targeted tests, both. As they cover in parts different loci it was not unexpected that they have different detection rates. However, one would expect that iFISH technique underestimates the genomic complexity in CLL [1]. Still it is striking that the routine iFISH test found 61% of the 163 aberrations while MLPA only detected 58%, even though routine iFISH applied only 5 probes and MLPA had more than 7 times more, i.e. 37 target regions.

Concerning detection of low level mosaics (10% up to 36% of the cells being aberrant) this study showed that there are about alike amounts of cases being detectable and being missed by MLPA (Tables 3 and 4). There were cases detectable by MLPA with aberrant cell clone sizes down to ~10% according to iFISH (sample 16) and such being not detectable (samples 6, 7, and 8). To the best of our knowledge there are only few previous [18]-[20] and no systematic studies for the detection rates of low level mosaic in MLPA. Véronèse et al. [7] suggested that all false-negative cases occur in samples with only 12-21% of aberrant cells; thus they considered MLPA detection to be reliable when the fraction of aberrant cells is 25-30%, which is definitely less sensitive than iFISH detection. Overall, this problem has to be kept in mind when doing MLPA exclusively in routine diagnostics.

Still, the findings of this study are in concordance with Stevens-Kroef et al. [21] who claimed an almost perfect correlation between MLPA and iFISH, as long as identical genetic regions are tested in MLPA and iFISH. However, bi- and monoallelic deletions coming together in one sample are not considered in this kind of comparison. Still, all apart from three MLPA findings not detectable in the applied routine iFISH setting could be verified by subsequent targeted iFISH. In the not verified cases this can be due to too small size of the detected copy number alteration, not resolvable by iFISH.

It is well known that there are different clinical prognoses if a del(13)(q14.3q14.3) comes mono- or biallelic and alone or together with a del(13)(q14.2q14.2): larger deletions like del(13)(q14.2q14.3) and biallelic deletions have shorter time to first treatment [1],[22],[23]. To get reliable information for this question a combination of MLPA and FISH is necessary.

According to Campregher and Hamerschlak [2] the detected aberrations can be grouped in such with adverse, intermediate, good prognosis. Those cases with good prognoses are further subdivided in such cases with favorable and such with less favorable outcome. Especially cases with adverse prognosis have influence on the therapeutic decisions. Taken together with the results of this study we suggest a diagnostic flow as shown in Figure 2.

As both MLPA and routine iFISH have in principle comparable detection rates in CLL, MLPA is more cost efficient than iFISH and it covers a more broad spectrum of target genes [12], we recommend MLPA to be the initial diagnostic test. The impact for the patient carrying rare mutations can be evident: Fabris et al. [11] reported that 2p gain can be present already in early stages of the disease, particularly in those cases characterized by other poor prognostic markers (samples 5, 16 and 63); del(6q) is generally considered as an intermediate-risk factor [1],[10] (samples 5 and 68); finally, López et al. [24] reported more rapid disease progression if trisomy 12 is accompanied by additional aberrations rather than if it is the only genetic abnormality (sample 62). Also new data may be acquired, as e.g. the impact of gain of MYC [1] (sample 16) or RUNX1 gene [25] (samples 5 and 69) are still unclear in CLL. If the diagnostic scheme suggested in Figure 2 would have been applied in the 85 patients presented here in 20 of them (23.5%) no iFISH would have been necessary. In those 20 patients (Tables 6, 7 and 8) MLPA would have already identified one or more adverse chromosomal aberrations leading to a therapeutic consequence.

Four patients (Tables 6, 7 and 8) would have been grouped into ‘intermediate prognosis’ after MLPA, one of them just having a trisomy 12 (sample 37). So in this group of patients, only three probes for the adverse prognosis regions should be applied in iFISH testing.

Normal MLPA result as found in 29 samples (= ~34%) all six (or seven, see legend of Figure 2) FISH probes as listed in Figure 2 should be applied to rule out low level mosaics of del(11)(q22.3q22.3), +12, del(13)(q14), del(17)(p13.1p13.1) or del(14)(q32q32). In the present cohort e.g. samples 2 and 13 go to “good prognosis”, samples 3 and 60 to “adverse prognosis” and sample 4 to “intermediate prognosis” group (Tables 6, 7 and 8).

Finally, 32 patients (Tables 6, 7 and 8) have been classified as ‘good prognosis’ after MLPA. Here, the same FISH probes as for normal MLPA result should be used for further subclassification (Figure 2). Again patients then may have to be moved to other prognostic groups if additional or low level mosaics are identified. Also it is known that CLL cases with del(13)(q14.2q14.2) go into unfavorable subgroup, as do such cases with biallelic deletions in 13q14. Finally, del(13)(q14.3q14.3) detected in ≥70% of the cells are also an indication to group a patient in unfavorable subgroup of ‘good prognosis’ group [1],[22]. Thus, further I-FISH studies are necessary also for patients with del(13)(q14.2q14.2) and/or del(13)(q14.3q14.3) in MLPA.

In case only MLPA and iFISH would have been done in the presently studied 85 patient still 3 samples would have been misclassified. Thus we suggest in Figure 2 still GTG-banding as the initial test for CLL diagnostics. Compared to a flow just applying banding cytogenetics and routine iFISH for diagnostics of CLL the introduction of the flow from Figure 2 would apply only 344 instead of 425 FISH-probes, i.e. 20% less.

Conclusion

The present study shows the importance of combining cytogenetics, molecular genetics and molecular cytogenetics to achieve a comprehensive characterization of acquired genetic alterations being present in CLL.

Methods

Patients and sample preparation

The present study included 85 samples of patients suffering from CLL (Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Table S2) diagnosed according to standard criteria [26]. The samples were obtained under informed consent of the corresponding patients and according to institutional ethical committee guidelines (Ethical commitee of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena).

DNA from lymphocytes was extracted by a commercial kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and was derived from different sources: 2 samples from heparinized bone marrow, 8 samples from heparinized blood, and 75 samples from cytogenetically prepared cells fixed in methanol/acetic acid (3:1) – 48 of them derived from bone marrow and 27 from blood (Additional file 1: Table S1).

GTG-banding and FISH analysis

The blood or bone marrow samples were stimulated with phorbol ester, i.e. 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) and cultivated for 96 hours, and a standard cytogenetic cell preparation following air drying method was done [27]. GTG-banding and iFISH analyses were routinely done in each sample following standard procedures [27],[28]. In 67 samples chromosomes could be obtained from the material prepared.

For routine iFISH the following commercially available probe sets (Abbott/Vysis, Wiesbaden, Germany) were used: LSI p53/LSI ATM (in 17p13.1 and 11q22.3), LSI D13S319/LSI 13q34/CEP 12 (in 13q14.3, 13q34 and 12p11.1-q11.1), and LSI IGH dual color, break-apart probe (in 14q32.33).

Additionally, the following probes were used to validate and possibly confirm the results of MLPA:

from Abbott/Vysis (Wiesbaden, Germany): LSI 13 (RB1 in 13q14.2), CEP 6 (D6Z1 in 6p11.1-q11,1), CEP 17 (D17Z1 in 17p11.1-q11.1) and CEP 18 (D18Z1 in 18p11.1-q11.1);

from Zytovision (Bremerhaven, Germany): ZytoLight ®SPEC ALK Dual Color Break Apart (in 2p22.32 ~ 22.31), ZytoLight ®SPEC NMYC/2q11 Dual Color (in 2q24.3 and 2q11), ZytoLight ®SPEC MYB Dual Color Break Apart (in 6q23.3), ZytoLight ®SPEC ESR1/CEN 6 Dual Color (in 6q25.1 and 6p11.1-q11.1), ZytoLight ®SPEC CMYC/CEN 8 Dual Color (8q24.21 and 8p11.1-q11.1), ZytoLight ®SPEC ETV6/RUNX1 Dual Color Dual Fusion (in 12p13.2 and 21q22.12); and

BACPAC Resources Center (Oakland, USA): RP1-142 L7 in 6q21 (gene FYN), RP11-318A15 in 17q25.1 (gene UNC13D), RP11-346H17 in 18q21.2 (gene DCC), RP11-37D8 in 6q27 (gene SMOC2) and RP11-411B in 18p11.22 (gene RNMT).

For each iFISH analysis, at least 100–200 interphase nuclei were examined per sample and FISH-probe.

MLPA analysis

MLPA was performed using SALSA MLPA probemix P377-A1 for Hematological Malignancies Kit from (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The P377-A1 probemix kit contains probes for 37 genes covered by overall 52 probes, which have diagnostic or prognostic significant role in hematologic malignancies (see Table 9). MLPA was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol, which includes three reaction phases: hybridization, ligation, and PCR. Finally, a capillary electrophoresis was used to separate and analyze MLPA PCR products. Genemarker software was used to analyze the peak areas of the MLPA PCR products, and the ratio was normalized to a healthy control. Threshold of detection was set at 0.65-1.35, to minimize the false positive cases.
Table 9

Loci addressed in the commercially available MLPA kit used in this study

Targets

Loci

Number of probes included in kit

MYCN

2p24.3

2

ALK

2p23.2 ~ 23.1

1

MIR145

5q33.1

1

EBF1

5q33.3

2

MIR146A

5q33.3

1

FYN

6q21

1

MYB

6q23.3

1

ESR1

6q25.1

1

SMOC2

6q27

1

IKZF1

7p12.2

3

CDK6

7q21.2

1

RELN

7q22.1

1

MET

7q31.2

1

DPP6

7q36.2

1

MYC

8q24.21

2

MTAP

9p21.3

1

CDKN2A

9p21.3

1

CDKN2B

9p21.3

1

PAX5

9p13.2

2

PTEN

9p13.1

1

PTEN

10q23.31

1

ATM

11q22.3

4

ETV6

12p13.2

2

MDM2

12q15

1

CCND2

12p13.32

1

RB1

13q14.2

2

MIR15A

13q14.3

1

DLEU1

13q14.3

1

DLEU2

13q14.3

1

TP53

17p13.1

4

UNC13D

17q25.1

1

IKZF3

17q12

1

DCC

18q21.2

1

RNMT

18q21.2

1

CACNA1A

19p13.13

1

CHMP2A

19q13.43

1

RUNX1

21q22.12

2

Additional files

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Supported in parts by the KAAD and the DAAD.

Clinical samples were provided by Prof. Dr. Hochhaus, Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena; Drs. Ruffert and Zulkowski, Gemeinschaftspraxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie, Jena; Dr. Roskos, synlab MVZ Weiden GmbH, MVZ Gera - Betriebsstätte Jena, Jena;Dr. Bergmann, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera gGmbH, Gera; Dr. Triebkorn, Saale-Unstrut Klinikum Naumburg, Naumburg; Dr. Nowatschin, Thüringen-Kliniken GmbH, Saalfeld; Drs. Hering-Schubert, Sladko and Ecke, St. Georg Klinikum Eisenach gGmbH, Eisenach; Dr. Walther, SRH Zentralklinikum Suhl gGmbH, Suhl; all Germany.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Institute of Human Genetics
(2)
Croatian Institute of Brain Research

References

  1. Rodríguez-Vicente AE, Díaz MG, Hernández-Rivas JM: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a clinical and molecular heterogenous disease. Cancer Genet 2013, 206: 49–62. 10.1016/j.cancergen.2013.01.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Campregher PV, Hamerschlak N: Novel prognostic gene mutations identified in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and their impact on clinical practice. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2014, 14: 271–276. 10.1016/j.clml.2013.12.016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Döhner H, Stilgenbauer S, Benner A, Leupolt E, Kröber A, Bullinger L, Döhner K, Bentz M, Lichter P: Genomic aberrations and survival in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2000, 343: 1910–1916. 10.1056/NEJM200012283432602View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Quintero-Rivera F, Nooraie F, Rao PN: Frequency of 5'IGH deletions in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2009, 190: 33–39. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2008.12.004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Mayr C, Speicher MR, Kofler DM, Buhmann R, Strehl J, Busch R, Hallek M, Wendtner CM: Chromosomal translocations are associated with poor prognosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2006, 107: 742–751. 10.1182/blood-2005-05-2093View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Haferlach C, Dicker F, Schnittger S, Kern W, Haferlach T: Comprehensive genetic characterization of CLL: a study on 506 cases analysed with chromosome banding analysis, interphase FISH, IgV(H) status and immunophenotyping. Leukemia 2007, 21: 2442–2451. 10.1038/sj.leu.2404935View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Véronèse L, Tournilhac O, Combes P, Prie N, Pierre-Eymard E, Guièze R, Veyrat-Masson R, Bay JO, Vago P, Tchirkov A: Contribution of MLPA to routine diagnostic testing of recurrent genomic aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Genet 2013, 206: 19–25. 10.1016/j.cancergen.2012.12.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Yoon JH, Kim Y, Yahng SA, Shin SH, Lee SE, Cho BS, Eom KS, Kim YJ, Lee S, Kim HJ, Min CK, Kim DW, Lee JW, Min WS, Park CW, Lim J, Kim Y, Han K, Kim M, Cho SG: Validation of Western common recurrent chromosomal aberrations in Korean chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patients with very low incidence. Hematol Oncol 2013, doi:10.1002/hon.2103, in pressGoogle Scholar
  9. Greipp PT, Smoley SA, Viswanatha DS, Frederick LS, Rabe KG, Sharma RG, Slager SL, Van Dyke DL, Shanafelt TD, Tschumper RC, Zent CS: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and clonal deletion of both 17p13.1 and 11q22.3 have a very poor prognosis. Br J Haematol 2013, 163: 326–333. 10.1111/bjh.12534PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuneo A, Rigolin GM, Bigoni R, De Angeli C, Veronese A, Cavazzini F, Bardi A, Roberti MG, Tammiso E, Agostini P, Ciccone M, Della Porta M, Tieghi A, Cavazzini L, Negrini M, Castoldi G: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia with 6q- shows distinct hematological features and intermediate prognosis. Leukemia 2004, 18: 476–483. 10.1038/sj.leu.2403242View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabris S, Mosca L, Cutrona G, Lionetti M, Agnelli L, Ciceri G, Barbieri M, Maura F, Matis S, Colombo M, Gentile M, Recchia AG, Anna Pesce E, Di Raimondo F, Musolino C, Gobbi M, Di Renzo N, Mauro FR, Brugiatelli M, Ilariucci F, Lipari MG, Angrilli F, Consoli U, Fragasso A, Molica S, Festini G, Vincelli I, Cortelezzi A, Federico M, Morabito F, et al.: Chromosome 2p gain in monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis and in early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Am J Hematol 2013, 88: 24–31. 10.1002/ajh.23340View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hömig-Hölzel C, Savola S: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) in tumor diagnostics and prognostics. Diagn Mol Pathol 2012, 21: 189–206. 10.1097/PDM.0b013e3182595516View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Liehr T, Karamysheva T, Merkas M, Brecevic L, Hamid AB, Ewers E, Mrasek K, Kosyakova N, Weise A: Somatic mosaicism in cases with small supernumerary marker chromosomes. Curr Genomics 2010, 11: 432–439. 10.2174/138920210793176029PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Keen-Kim D, Nooraie F, Rao PN: Cytogenetic biomarkers for human cancer. Front Biosci 2008, 13: 5928–5949. 10.2741/3127View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wan TS, Ma ES: Molecular cytogenetics: an indispensable tool for cancer diagnosis. Chang Gung Med J 2012, 35: 96–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar N, Ahluwalia J, Malhotra P, Sachdeva MU: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia developing in a case of chronic myelogenous leukemia–accelerated phase: a rare case with review of the literature. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2013, 56: 303–305. 10.4103/0377-4929.120406View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tohami T, Nagler A, Amariglio N: Laboratory tools for diagnosis and monitoring response in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Isr Med Assoc J 2012, 14: 501–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Coll-Mulet L, Santidrián AF, Cosialls AM, Iglesias-Serret D, de Frias M, Grau J, Menoyo A, González-Barca E, Pons G, Domingo A, Gil J: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification for detection of genomic alterations in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol 2008, 142: 793–801. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07268.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Abdool A, Donahue AC, Wohlgemuth JG, Yeh CH: Detection, analysis and clinical validation of chromosomal aberrations by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in chronic leukemia. PLoS One 2010, 5: e15407. 10.1371/journal.pone.0015407PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Al Zaabi EA, Fernandez LA, Sadek IA, Riddell DC, Greer WL: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus multiprobe fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect genomic aberrations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a tertiary center experience. J Mol Diagn 2010, 12: 197–203. 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090046PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Stevens-Kroef M, Simons A, Gorissen H, Feuth T, Weghuis DO, Buijs A, Raymakers R, Geurts Van Kessel A: Identification of chromosomal abnormalities relevant to prognosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2009, 195: 97–104. 10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2009.06.020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Dal Bo M, Rossi FM, Rossi D, Deambrogi C, Bertoni F, Del Giudice I, Palumbo G, Nanni M, Rinaldi A, Kwee I, Tissino E, Corradini G, Gozzetti A, Cencini E, Ladetto M, Coletta AM, Luciano F, Bulian P, Pozzato G, Laurenti L, Forconi F, Di Raimondo F, Marasca R, Del Poeta G, Gaidano G, Foà R, Guarini A, Gattei V: 13q14 deletion size and number of deleted cells both influence prognosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Genes Chromosom Cancer 2011, 50: 633–643. 10.1002/gcc.20885View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Puiggros A, Venturas M, Salido M, Blanco G, Fernandez-Rodriguez C, Collado R, Valiente A, Ruiz-Xivillé N, Carrió A, Ortuño FJ, Luño E, Calasanz MJ, Ardanaz MT, Piñán MA, Talavera E, González MT, Ortega M, Marugán I, Ferrer A, Gimeno E, Bellosillo B, Delgado J, Hernández JA, Hernández-Rivas JM, Espinet B: Interstitial 13q14 deletions detected in the karyotype and translocations with concomitant deletion at 13q14 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Different genetic mechanisms but equivalent poorer clinical outcome. Genes Chromosom Cancer 2014, 53: 788–797. 10.1002/gcc.22188View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. López C, Delgado J, Costa D, Conde L, Ghita G, Villamor N, Navarro A, Cazorla M, Gómez C, Arias A, Muñoz C, Baumann T, Rozman M, Aymerich M, Colomer D, Cobo F, Campo E, López-Guillermo A, Montserrat E, Carrió A: Different distribution of NOTCH1 mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia with isolated trisomy 12 or associated with other chromosomal alterations. Genes Chromosom Cancer 2012, 51: 881–889. 10.1002/gcc.21972View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson HM, Broadfield ZJ, Cheung KL, Harewood L, Harris RL, Jalali GR, Martineau M, Moorman AV, Taylor KE, Richards S, Mitchell C, Harrison CJ: Amplification of AML1 in acute lymphoblastic leukemia is associated with a poor outcome. Leukemia 2003, 17: 2249–2250. 10.1038/sj.leu.2403140View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hallek M, Cheson BD, Catovsky D, Caligaris-Cappio F, Dighiero G, Döhner H, Hillmen P, Keating MJ, Montserrat E, Rai KR, Kipps TJ: Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a report from the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia updating the National Cancer Institute-Working Group 1996 guidelines. Blood 2008, 111: 5446–5456. 10.1182/blood-2007-06-093906PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Claussen U, Michel S, Mühlig P, Westermann M, Grummt UW, Kromeyer-Hauschild K, Liehr T: Demystifying chromosome preparation and the implications for the concept of chromosome condensation during mitosis. Cytogenet Genome Res 2002, 98: 136–146. 10.1159/000069817View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Liehr T, Heller A, Starke H, Rubtsov N, Trifonov V, Mrasek K, Weise A, Kuechler A, Claussen U: Microdissection based high resolution multicolor banding for all 24 human chromosomes. Int J Mol Med 2002, 9: 335–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Alhourani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement