Fluorescent in situ hybridization has limitations in screening NRG1 gene rearrangements

Abstract Background NRG1 fusion is a promising therapeutic target for various tumors but its prevalence is extremely low, and there are no standardized testing algorithms for genetic assessment. Mothods In this study, we analyzed 3008 tumors using Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immuno...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Xiaomei Zhang (Author), Lin Li (Author), Fuping Gao (Author), Binbin Liu (Author), Jing Li (Author), Shuang Ren (Author), Shuangshuang Peng (Author), Wei Qiu (Author), Xiaohong Pu (Author), Qing Ye (Author)
Format: Book
Published: BMC, 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_c22e45c3ed0547048f285dba10e2f48f
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Xiaomei Zhang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Lin Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Fuping Gao  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Binbin Liu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Jing Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Shuang Ren  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Shuangshuang Peng  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Wei Qiu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Xiaohong Pu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Qing Ye  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Fluorescent in situ hybridization has limitations in screening NRG1 gene rearrangements 
260 |b BMC,   |c 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1186/s13000-023-01424-7 
500 |a 1746-1596 
520 |a Abstract Background NRG1 fusion is a promising therapeutic target for various tumors but its prevalence is extremely low, and there are no standardized testing algorithms for genetic assessment. Mothods In this study, we analyzed 3008 tumors using Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to screen for NRG1 translocation and p-HER3 expression. Results Our results demonstrated no cases with p-HER3 positivity through IHC. Nonetheless, 29 cases (0.96%) were identified positive for NRG1 translocation through FISH, with three different signal types. FISH-positive cases were subsequently subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing. However, only eight of these cases were confirmed with NRG1 fusion through NGS. Notably, we divided FISH into three types and FISH type C group was consistent with NGS results. All NGS NRG1 fusion tumors were adenocarcinomas, with a higher prevalence in females. Our findings indicate that although FISH has limitations in screening NRG1 gene rearrangements, NRG1 fusions can be reliably detected with signals exhibiting low copy numbers of the 5'-end of the gene and no fusion signals. Conclusion Considering the high cost of NGS, FISH remains a useful method for screening NRG1 fusions in various types of tumors. This study provides valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms of NRG1 fusion and identifies potential treatment targets for patients suffering from this disease. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a NRG1 
690 |a Fluorescence in situ hybridization 
690 |a Next generation sequencing 
690 |a Pathology 
690 |a RB1-214 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Diagnostic Pathology, Vol 19, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2024) 
787 0 |n https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-023-01424-7 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1746-1596 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/c22e45c3ed0547048f285dba10e2f48f  |z Connect to this object online.