Abstract
In the past two decades, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and array CGH have become indispensable tools in clinical diagnostics and toxicological risk assessment. Initially developed for the genome-wide screening of chromosomal imbalances, that is, copy-number variations in tumor cells, both CGH and array CGH have been employed in genotoxicology and most recently in toxicogenomics. The latter allows a multi-end point analysis of how particular genes react to toxic agents, revealing changes in signaling pathways and other underlying molecular mechanisms. This chapter provides background on the use of CGH and array CGH in the context of genotoxicology, and also a protocol for conventional CGH, so that the basic principles of this methodology can be better understood. Conventional and array CGH investigate DNA expression patterns, copy-number variations across the whole genome, and loss of heterozygosity after genotoxic damage. Array CGH is still cost-intensive but produces exponentially more data, requiring suitable analytical algorithms and sophisticated bioinformatic analysis. As toxicogenomics is an emerging sub-discipline of toxicology research, effectively evaluating toxicogenomic microarray data can be hugely advantageous for human risk assessment, even though international regulatory guidelines on toxicogenomics have yet to be fully agreed and implemented.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Pinkel D, Straume T, Gray JW (1986) Cytogenetic analysis using quantitative, high-sensitivity, fluorescence hybridization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83(9):2934–2938
Ratan ZA, Zaman SB, Mehta V et al (2017) Application of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique for the detection of genetic aberration in medical science. Cureus 9(6):e1325
Heng HH, Squire J, Tsui LC (1992) High-resolution mapping of mammalian genes by in situ hybridization to free chromatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89(20):9509–9513
Speicher MR, Gwyn Ballard S, Ward DC (1996) Karyotyping human chromosomes by combinatorial multi-fluor FISH. Nat Genet 12(4):368–375
Schrock E, du Manoir S, Veldman T et al (1996) Multicolor spectral karyotyping of human chromosomes. Science 273(5274):494–497
Tanke HJ, Wiegant J, van Gijlswijk RP et al (1999) New strategy for multi-colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation: COBRA: COmbined Binary RAtio labelling. Eur J Hum Genet 7(1):2–11
Bolzer A, Kreth G, Solovei I et al (2005) Three-dimensional maps of all chromosomes in human male fibroblast nuclei and prometaphase rosettes. PLoS Biol 3(5):e157
Cremer T, Cremer C (2001) Chromosome territories, nuclear architecture and gene regulation in mammalian cells. Nat Rev Genet 2(4):292–301
Deng W, Shi X, Tjian R et al (2015) CASFISH: CRISPR/Cas9-mediated in situ labeling of genomic loci in fixed cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(38):11870–11875
Chen B, Gilbert LA, Cimini BA et al (2013) Dynamic imaging of genomic loci in living human cells by an optimized CRISPR/Cas system. Cell 155(7):1479–1491
Speicher MR, Carter NP (2005) The new cytogenetics: blurring the boundaries with molecular biology. Nat Rev Genet 6(10):782–792
Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Sudar D et al (1992) Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 258(5083):818–821
du Manoir S, Speicher MR, Joos S et al (1993) Detection of complete and partial chromosome gains and losses by comparative genomic in situ hybridization. Hum Genet 90(6):590–610
Riegel M (2014) Human molecular cytogenetics: from cells to nucleotides. Genet Mol Biol 37(1 Suppl):194–209
Kallioniemi OP, Kallioniemi A, Sudar D et al (1993) Comparative genomic hybridization: a rapid new method for detecting and mapping DNA amplification in tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 4(1):41–46
Zitzelsberger H, Lehmann L, Werner M et al (1997) Comparative genomic hybridisation for the analysis of chromosomal imbalances in solid tumours and haematological malignancies. Histochem Cell Biol 108(4-5):403–417
Piper J, Rutovitz D, Sudar D et al (1995) Computer image analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry 19(1):10–26
Corso C, Parry EM (1999) The application of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization to the characterization of genotoxicity screening tester strains AHH-1 and MCL-5. Mutagenesis 14(4):417–426
Carlson KM, Gruber A, Liliemark E et al (1999) Characterization of drug-resistant cell lines by comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 111(1):32–36
Corso C, Parry JM (2004) Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of N-methyl-N′-nitrosoguanidine-induced rat gastrointestinal tumors discloses a cytogenetic fingerprint. Environ Mol Mutagen 43(1):20–27
Payne J, Jones C, Lakhani S et al (2000) Improving the reproducibility of the MCF-7 cell proliferation assay for the detection of xenoestrogens. Sci Total Environ 248(1):51–62
Kim YM, Yang S, Xu W et al (2008) Continuous in vitro exposure to low-dose genistein induces genomic instability in breast epithelial cells. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 186(2):78–84
Wong N, Lai P, Pang E et al (2000) Genomic aberrations in human hepatocellular carcinomas of differing etiologies. Clin Cancer Res 6(10):4000–4009
Clarke PA, te Poele R, Wooster R et al (2001) Gene expression microarray analysis in cancer biology, pharmacology, and drug development: progress and potential. Biochem Pharmacol 62(10):1311–1336
Solinas-Toldo S, Lampel S, Stilgenbauer S et al (1997) Matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization: biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 20(4):399–407
Ylstra B, van den Ijssel P, Carvalho B et al (2006) BAC to the future! or oligonucleotides: a perspective for micro array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH). Nucleic Acids Res 34(2):445–450
Brennan C, Zhang Y, Leo C et al (2004) High-resolution global profiling of genomic alterations with long oligonucleotide microarray. Cancer Res 64(14):4744–4748
Chan VSW, Theilade MD (2005) The use of toxicogenomic data in risk assessment: A regulatory perspective. Clin Toxicol 43(2):121–126
Davies JJ, Wilson IM, Lam WL (2005) Array CGH technologies and their applications to cancer genomes. Chromosom Res 13(3):237–248
Amin RP, Hamadeh HK, Bushel PR et al (2002) Genomic interrogation of mechanism(s) underlying cellular responses to toxicants. Toxicology 181-182:555–563
Gerhold D, Lu MQ, Xu J et al (2001) Monitoring expression of genes involved in drug metabolism and toxicology using DNA microarrays. Physiol Genomics 5(4):161–170
Aradhya S, Lewis R, Bonaga T et al (2012) Exon-level array CGH in a large clinical cohort demonstrates increased sensitivity of diagnostic testing for Mendelian disorders. Genet Med 14(6):594–603
Wang J, Zhan H, Li FY et al (2012) Targeted array CGH as a valuable molecular diagnostic approach: experience in the diagnosis of mitochondrial and metabolic disorders. Mol Genet Metab 106(2):221–230
Hu DG, Webb G, Hussey N (2004) Aneuploidy detection in single cells using DNA array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 10(4):283–289
Cheng J, Vanneste E, Konings P et al (2011) Single-cell copy number variation detection. Genome Biol 12(8):R80
Fiegler H, Geigl JB, Langer S et al (2007) High resolution array-CGH analysis of single cells. Nucleic Acids Res 35(3):e15
Crotwell PL, Hoyme HE (2012) Advances in whole-genome genetic testing: from chromosomes to microarrays. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 42(3):47–73
Auer H, Newsom DL, Nowak NJ et al (2007) Gene-resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using oligonucleotide expression microarrays. BMC Genomics 8:111
Zhao XJ, Li C, Paez JG et al (2004) An integrated view of copy number and allelic alterations in the cancer genome using single nucleotide polymorphism arrays. Cancer Res 64(9):3060–3071
Le Scouarnec S, Gribble SM (2012) Characterising chromosome rearrangements: recent technical advances in molecular cytogenetics. Heredity (Edinb) 108(1):75–85
Schillert A, Ziegler A (2012) Genotype calling for the Affymetrix platform. Methods Mol Biol 850:513–523
Hester SD, Reid L, Nowak N et al (2009) Comparison of comparative genomic hybridization technologies across microarray platforms. J Biomol Tech 20(2):135–151
Herzog CR, Desai D, Amin S (2006) Array CGH analysis reveals chromosomal aberrations in mouse lung adenocarcinomas induced by the human lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 341(3):856–863
Medlin JF (1999) Timely toxicology. Environ Health Perspect 107(5):A256–A258
Heinloth AN, Shackelford RE, Innes CL et al (2003) Identification of distinct and common gene expression changes after oxidative stress and gamma and ultraviolet radiation. Mol Carcinog 37(2):65–82
Heinloth AN, Shackelford RE, Innes CL et al (2003) ATM-dependent and -independent gene expression changes in response to oxidative stress, gamma irradiation, and UV irradiation. Radiat Res 160(3):273–290
Brown N, Finnon R, Manning G et al (2015) Influence of radiation quality on mouse chromosome 2 deletions in radiation-induced acute myeloid leukaemia. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen 793:48–54
Castagnola P, Malacarne D, Scaruffi P et al (2011) Chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidy in oral potentially malignant lesions: distinctive features for tongue. BMC Cancer 11:445
Fujimoto J, Kadara H, Men T et al (2010) Comparative functional genomics analysis of NNK tobacco-carcinogen induced lung adenocarcinoma development in Gprc5a-knockout mice. PLoS One 5(7):e11847
Auerbach SS, Shah RR, Mav D et al (2010) Predicting the hepatocarcinogenic potential of alkenylbenzene flavoring agents using toxicogenomics and machine learning. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 243(3):300–314
Iwahashi H, Kitagawa E, Suzuki Y et al (2007) Evaluation of toxicity of the mycotoxin citrinin using yeast ORF DNA microarray and Oligo DNA microarray. BMC Genomics 8:95
Huang Y, Fernandez SV, Goodwin S et al (2007) Epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human breast epithelial cells transformed by 17beta-estradiol. Cancer Res 67(23):11147–11157
Hong HJ, Koom WS, Koh WG (2017) Cell microarray technologies for high-throughput cell-based biosensors. Sensors (Basel) 17(6):E1293
Grant GR, Manduchi E, Stoeckert CJ Jr (2007) Analysis and management of microarray gene expression data [chapter 19, unit 6]. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 77(1):1–30
Vermeesch JR, Melotte C, Froyen G et al (2005) Molecular karyotyping: array CGH quality criteria for constitutional genetic diagnosis. J Histochem Cytochem 53(3):413–422
Guha S, Li Y, Neuberg D (2008) Bayesian Hidden Markov Modeling of Array CGH Data. J Am Stat Assoc 103(482):485–497
Zhang L, Zhang L (2013) Use of autocorrelation scanning in DNA copy number analysis. Bioinformatics 29(21):2678–2682
Shaw-Smith C, Redon R, Rickman L et al (2004) Microarray based comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) detects submicroscopic chromosomal deletions and duplications in patients with learning disability/mental retardation and dysmorphic features. J Med Genet 41(4):241–248
Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J et al (2001) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet 29(4):365–371
Brazma A (2009) Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—successes, failures, challenges. ScientificWorldJournal 9:420–423
Liu Y, Li A, Feng H et al (2015) TAFFYS: An Integrated Tool for Comprehensive Analysis of Genomic Aberrations in Tumor Samples. PLoS One 10(6):e0129835
Quigley D (2015) Equalizer reduces SNP bias in Affymetrix microarrays. BMC Bioinformatics 16:238
Mayrhofer M, Viklund B, Isaksson A (2016) Rawcopy: Improved copy number analysis with Affymetrix arrays. Sci Rep 6:36158
Morgan AP (2015) argyle: an R package for analysis of illumina genotyping arrays. G3 (Bethesda) 6(2):281–286
Tice RR, Austin CP, Kavlock RJ et al (2013) Improving the human hazard characterization of chemicals: a Tox21 update. Environ Health Perspect 121(7):756–765
Aardema MJ, MacGregor JT (2002) Toxicology and genetic toxicology in the new era of “toxicogenomics”: impact of “-omics” technologies. Mutat Res 499(1):13–25
Ruden DM, Gurdziel K, Aschner M (2017) Frontiers in toxicogenomics in the twenty-first century-the grand challenge: to understand how the genome and epigenome interact with the toxic environment at the single-cell, whole-organism, and multi-generational level. Front Genet 8:173
Mahadevan B, Snyder RD, Waters MD et al (2011) Genetic toxicology in the 21st century: reflections and future directions. Environ Mol Mutagen 52(5):339–354
OECD (2009) Series on testing and assessment no. 100 - Report of the second survey on available omics tools (ENV/JM/MONO(2008)35). Available at http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?cote=env/jm/mono(2008)35&doclanguage=en. Accessed 22 June 2018
Karahalil B (2016) Overview of systems biology and omics technologies. Curr Med Chem 23(37):4221–4230
Vrana KE, Freeman WM, Aschner M (2003) Use of microarray technologies in toxicology research. Neurotoxicology 24(3):321–332
Song Y, Asselman J, De Schamphelaere KAC et al (2018) Deciphering the combined effects of environmental stressors on gene transcription: a conceptual approach. Environ Sci Technol 52(9):5479–5489
Jeong J, Choi J (2017) Use of adverse outcome pathways in chemical toxicity testing: potential advantages and limitations. Environ Health Toxicol 33(1):e2018002
Mattingly CJ, Rosenstein MC, Davis AP et al (2006) The comparative toxicogenomics database: a cross-species resource for building chemical-gene interaction networks. Toxicol Sci 92(2):587–595
Davis AP, Grondin CJ, Johnson RJ et al (2017) The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: update 2017. Nucleic Acids Res 45(D1):D972–D978
Davis AP, Wiegers TC, Wiegers J et al (2018) Chemical-induced phenotypes at CTD help inform the predisease state and construct adverse outcome pathways. Toxicol Sci 165(1):145–156
Grondin CJ, Davis AP, Wiegers TC et al (2018) Accessing an expanded exposure science module at the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database. Environ Health Perspect 126(1):014501
Young RR (2002) Genetic toxicology: web resources. Toxicology 173(1-2):103–121
Lea IA, Gong H, Paleja A et al (2017) CEBS: a comprehensive annotated database of toxicological data. Nucleic Acids Res 45(D1):D964–D971
Nuwaysir EF, Bittner M, Trent J et al (1999) Microarrays and toxicology: the advent of toxicogenomics. Mol Carcinog 24(3):153–159
Andersen ME, Krewski D (2009) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: bringing the vision to life. Toxicol Sci 107(2):324–330
Testing CoT, Assessment of Environmental Agents NRC (2007) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Andersen ME, Al-Zoughool M, Croteau M et al (2010) The future of toxicity testing. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 13(2-4):163–196
Andersen ME, Krewski D (2010) The vision of toxicity testing in the 21st century: moving from discussion to action. Toxicol Sci 117(1):17–24
Jacobs A (2009) An FDA perspective on the nonclinical use of the X-Omics technologies and the safety of new drugs. Toxicol Lett 186(1):32–35
Hendrickx DM, Boyles RR, Kleinjans JC et al (2014) Workshop report: identifying opportunities for global integration of toxicogenomics databases, 26-27 June 2013, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Arch Toxicol 88(12):2323–2332
Bhattacharya S, Zhang Q, Carmichael PL et al (2011) Toxicity testing in the 21 century: defining new risk assessment approaches based on perturbation of intracellular toxicity pathways. PLoS One 6(6):e20887
Krewski D, Westphal M, Al-Zoughool M et al (2011) New directions in toxicity testing. Annu Rev Public Health 32:161–178
Moffat I, Chepelev N, Labib S et al (2015) Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo[a]pyrene in drinking water. Crit Rev Toxicol 45(1):1–43
Chepelev NL, Moffat ID, Labib S et al (2015) Integrating toxicogenomics into human health risk assessment: lessons learned from the benzo[a]pyrene case study. Crit Rev Toxicol 45(1):44–52
Jean-Quartier C, Jeanquartier F, Jurisica I et al (2018) In silico cancer research towards 3R. BMC Cancer 18(1):408
Vachon J, Page-Lariviere F, Sirard MA et al (2018) Availability, quality, and relevance of toxicogenomics data for human health risk assessment: a scoping review of the literature on trihalomethanes. Toxicol Sci 163(2):364–373
Farmahin R, Williams A, Kuo B et al (2017) Recommended approaches in the application of toxicogenomics to derive points of departure for chemical risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 91(5):2045–2065
Telenius H, Carter NP, Bebb CE et al (1992) Degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerate primer. Genomics 13(3):718–725
Zhang L, Cui X, Schmitt K et al (1992) Whole genome amplification from a single cell: implications for genetic analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89(13):5847–5851
Huber R, Kulka U, Lorch T et al (2001) Technical report: application of the Metafer2 fluorescence scanning system for the analysis of radiation-induced chromosome aberrations measured by FISH-chromosome painting. Mutat Res 492(1-2):51–57
Bangs CD, Donlon TA (2005) Metaphase chromosome preparation from cultured peripheral blood cells. Curr Protoc Hum Genet Chapter 4:Unit 4.1
du Manoir S, Kallioniemi OP, Lichter P et al (1995) Hardware and software requirements for quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry 19(1):4–9
du Manoir S, Schrock E, Bentz M et al (1995) Quantitative analysis of comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry 19(1):27–41
Lundsteen C, Maahr J, Christensen B et al (1995) Image analysis in comparative genomic hybridization. Cytometry 19(1):42–50
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Baumgartner, A., Hartleb, V., Taylor, J.D. (2019). Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) in Genotoxicology. In: Dhawan, A., Bajpayee, M. (eds) Genotoxicity Assessment. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2031. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9646-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9646-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-9645-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-9646-9
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols