PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11532221

AFM 4.0: a toolbox for DNA microarray analysis.

Abstract

We have developed a series of programs, collectively packaged as Array File Maker 4.0 (AFM), that manipulate and manage DNA microarray data. AFM 4.0 is simple to use, applicable to any organism or microarray, and operates within the familiar confines of Microsoft Excel. Given a database of expression ratios, AFM 4.0 generates input files for clustering, helps prepare colored figures and Venn diagrams, and can uncover aneuploidy in yeast microarray data. AFM 4.0 should be especially useful to laboratories that do not have access to specialized commercial or in-house software.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B J Breitkreutz, P Jorgensen, A Breitkreutz, M Tyers. 2001-08-06. AFM 4.0: a toolbox for DNA microarray analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2001-2-8-software0001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Maternal age as a driver of genome instability: mechanisms linking aneuploidy, mutagenesis and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Advanced maternal age is a well-established risk factor for adverse reproductive outcomes due to increased rates of aneuploidy. However, emerging evidence indicates that the genetic consequences of maternal aging extend well beyond chromosome mis-segregation. Aging oocytes acquire a broad spectrum of genetic abnormalities, including maternally derived nuclear de novo mutations (DNMs) and mitochondrial DNA mutations, together with epigenetic dysregulation of DNA methylation and post-translational modification levels. These changes reflect the unique biology of the female germline in which oocytes remain arrested in meiotic prophase I for decades. Age-related deterioration of key processes, such as erosion of cohesion complexes, altered meiotic recombination, and weakened spindle assembly checkpoint surveillance collectively destabilize meiotic chromosome architecture, directly driving chromosome mis-segregation. At the same time, accumulation of endogenous DNA damage and declining DNA damage and repair processes increase the chances of transmitting lesions that can be converted into sequence-level mutations during the earliest embryonic divisions, when genome maintenance relies exclusively on maternal factors. High-resolution sequencing studies further demonstrate that maternal aging is associated with increased DNMs burden in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Together, these findings support a model in which maternal aging is a driver of genome-wide instability that links aneuploidy and mutagenesis through shared defects in meiotic surveillance, declining DNA repair efficiency, and mitochondrial function. This framework positions delayed childbearing as a multifaceted genetic risk factor that extend beyond aneuploidy to include mutations and other genomic alterations that can impact intergenerational genetic risk.

Aneuploidy↗

Modeling and targeting general and chromosome-specific aneuploidy in cancer.

Throughout the last century, aneuploidy has been cemented as a hallmark of cancer. Although the association of aneuploidy with tumorigenesis has been well established, the role of these genetic imbalances in tumor formation has only recently begun to be elucidated. Advancements in genomics have revealed the complexity and context dependence of the effect of aneuploidy on cancer growth, while developments in genetic editing have allowed for proper modeling of specific aneuploidies. In this review, we discuss the key factors to consider when studying the role of aneuploidy in cancer and the tools that are available to do so. We then highlight recent studies that establish phenotypic contributions of aneuploidy to tumorigenicity. In particular, we highlight how general aneuploidy and chromosomal instability affect the tumor microenvironment and how specific chromosomal alterations, including the loss of chromosome 9p and the gain of chromosomes 8q and 1q, influence tumor behavior and therapeutic responses. Finally, we emphasize the potential of targeting aneuploidy-induced vulnerabilities to improve cancer treatment outcomes.

Aneuploidy↗

SKY assessment of two karyotypes with 0-6 supernumerary marker/ring chromosomes and review of previously reported cases with two or more markers.

A 7-month-old boy with developmental delay and congenital abnormalities and a 58-year-old man with mental retardation, impaired speech, and dysmorphic features were referred for cytogenetic studies. The peripheral blood chromosome studies of Patient 1 had a de novo mosaic karyotype with 2-6 supernumerary marker chromosomes. Patient 2 had a mosaic karyotype with 1-5 supernumerary marker chromosomes and normal cells. All markers appeared to have a centromere by C-banding and also by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using all centromere probe for Patient 1. The majority of the markers appeared like rings. Except for one marker in Patient 1 and 2-3 markers in Patient 2 with discernible >5 Mb euchromatin, the rest of the markers were minute and some appeared to have barely discernible euchromatin in C-banding or FISH. Spectral karyotyping (SKY) was attempted to determine the origin of the marker chromosomes. Because some markers had barely any euchromatin, their classification was not clear cut and they were identified as derived from more than one chromosome. The SKY classification of the markers in Patient 1 was 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 22 and in Patient 2 was 1, 5, 6, or 7. Patient 2 was lost to further follow-up studies. To confirm the recurring SKY classifications in Patient 1, centromere probes for chromosomes 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 22 were used. The markers were negative for 1, 3, and 11 but positive for 7, 15, and 22 and probably 5. Since 5 centromere probe cross hybridizes with 1 and 19, the weak signal on the marker/s in successive hybridization did not give a definitive answer. Also, the 5 paint probe was not conclusive because of the minute size of the marker. In some metaphases, two markers were derived from 5 or 22. For clinical considerations, the marker derived from 7, although variable in size, appeared to consistently have euchromatin, followed by 15, while 22 and 5 markers were mostly centromeric heterochromatin. The elastin gene probe that maps to 7q11.23, SNRPN gene that maps to 15q11.2, and TUPLE gene that maps to 22q11.2 did not give a signal on the markers. As expected for a majority of ring chromosomes, the pan telomere probe did not hybridize to any of the markers. This highly unusual karyotype was confirmed in the buccal epithelium using a mix of centromere 7 and 15 probes and the combination 14/22 probe. The ratio of additional FISH signals in the buccal mucosal cells was comparable to the ratios observed in the peripheral blood. In this study, we have attempted to consolidate the data on >/=2 marker cases to understand the analysis constraints, the range of clinical abnormalities, and the mechanisms involved. The literature was surveyed for multiple markers cases. A majority of the reported cases had two markers, either derived from the same chromosome or from two different chromosomes or two cell lines with different markers derived from the same chromosome. Cases with three or more markers were rare. The nature and extent of euchromatin content of the multiple markers appears to determine the phenotype. Frequently, multiple marker cases had small to minute markers. The clinical presentation varied from mild to severe. While two bisatellited markers may be associated with infertility, the phenotype in other cases ranged from borderline intelligence and mild dysmorphism to developmental delay, mental retardation, and congenital abnormalities.

Aneuploidy↗