PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8705195

Comparison between flow cytometric and cytogenetic tumor cell DNA content using a simple flow sample preparation method: ploidy comparison of 86 fresh pediatric tumors.

D Zwick·R Morgan·L Pasztor·D Harris·M Hetherington·C Zalles·R Garola
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A comparison of tumor ploidy by flow cytometry (FL) and cytogenetics (CYG) was made in 86 fresh pediatric solid (n = 47) and hematopoietic (n = 39) tumors using simple sampling and semiautomated proprietary FL preparation methods and defined histogram interpretive criteria. Tumor karyotypes with 44-48 chromosomes were regarded as CYG diploid and other chromosomal complements CYG aneuploid for comparison purposes. Five histograms were uninterpretable and nine cases failed to produce 15 or more metaphases for karyotyping. Mean G0/G1 peak coefficients of variation of all 86 cases were 2.7 and 3.0 for the diploid and aneuploid populations, respectively. Of the 72 eligible cases, 41 were concordant diploid and 16 concordant aneuploid with an overall concordance of 79%. The DNA index and karyotypic index correlation coefficient was 0.92 for the 16 concordant aneuploid cases. Analysis of the 15 discordant cases highlights the limitations of both methods and of the histogram interpretive criteria and indicates that FL is probably more sensitive for detection of tumor aneuploidy as defined and detected by these methods.

Explore related subjects

AneuploidyChildCytogeneticsDNA, NeoplasmFlow CytometryHumansKaryotypingNeoplasmsPloidiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Zwick, R Morgan, L Pasztor, D Harris, M Hetherington, C Zalles, R Garola. Comparison between flow cytometric and cytogenetic tumor cell DNA content using a simple flow sample preparation method: ploidy comparison of 86 fresh pediatric tumors.. https://doi.org/10.3109/15513819509027021

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

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↗
PubMed2025

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↗