Comparative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization microarray technologies: Report of a workshop sponsored by the Wellcome Trust

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Array‐comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), although providing much higher resolution compared with conventional CGH, has not yet become a widely applied method for the analysis of genomic gains and losses.Methods: In January 2002, the Wellcome Trust sponsored a workshop where many of the laboratories developing this technology met to compare different methodologies for array‐CGH. Fourteen groups participated, comprising 11 from Europe and 3 from the United States. To facilitate objective analysis, each laboratory constructed arrays using the same anonymous clones and performed a series of test hybridizations using identical genomic DNAs.Results: A figure of merit (FM) was developed to summarize entire collections of data from each laboratory in a single measurement. The FMs consistently showed that a few groups produced quantitative array hybridization data of high quality, whereas a majority achieved a lower standard.Conclusions: The conclusions of the workshop were that polymerase chain reaction‐based methods for the amplification of large insert clones for arraying were effective for array‐CGH. It was also concluded that hybridizations performed under coverslips or in automated hybridization apparatus were less effective than hybridizations performed in simple wells with gentle rocking. A common experience by the participants was the batch‐to‐batch variability of commercial Cot1 preparations in their ability to suppress hybridization to repeat sequences. (Supplementary material for this article can be found in the online issue, which is available at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0196‐4763/suppmat/49_2/v49.43.html or at http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/Cytogenetics/Publications/Cytometry Sept 2002/Supplemental.pdf.) Cytometry 49:43–48, 2002.