Inactivation of polycomb repressive complex 2 components in myeloproliferative and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms.

The polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a highly conserved histone H3 lysine 27 methyltransferase that regulates the expression of developmental genes. Inactivating mutations of the catalytic component of PRC2, EZH2, are seen in myeloid disorders. We reasoned that the other 2 core PRC2 components, SUZ12 and EED, may also be mutational targets in these diseases, as well as associated factors such as JARID2. SUZ12 mutations were identified in 1 of 2 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasms with 17q acquired uniparental disomy and in 2 of 2 myelofibrosis cases with focal 17q11 deletions. All 3 were missense mutations affecting the highly conserved VEFS domain. Analysis of a further 146 myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative neoplasm patients revealed an additional VEFS domain mutant, yielding a total mutation frequency of 1.4% (2 of 148). We did not find mutations of JARID2 or EED in association with acquired uniparental disomy for chromosome 6p or 11q, respectively; however, screening unselected cases identified missense mutations in EED (1 of 148; 1%) and JARID2 (3 of 148; 2%). All 3 SUZ12 mutations tested and the EED mutation reduced PRC2 histone methyltransferase activity in vitro, demonstrating that PRC2 function may be compromised in myeloid disorders by mutation of distinct genes.

Simultaneous MLPA-based multiplex point mutation and deletion analysis of the dystrophin gene.

The Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification assay (MLPA) is the method of choice for the initial mutation screen in the analysis of a large number of genes where partial or total gene deletion is part of the mutation spectrum. Although MLPA dosage probes are usually designed to bind to normal DNA sequence to identify dosage imbalance, point mutation-specific MLPA probes can also be made. Using the dystrophin gene as a model, we have designed two MLPA probe multiplexes that are specific to a number of commonly listed point mutations in the Leiden dystrophin point mutation database (http://www.dmd.nl). The point mutation probes are designed to work simultaneously with two widely used dystrophin MLPA multiplexes, allowing both full dosage analysis and partial point mutation analysis in a single test. This approach may be adapted for other syndromes with well defined common point mutations or polymorphisms.

A comparison of methods for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

EGFR mutation testing of tumor samples is routinely performed to predict sensitivity to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. At least 9 different methodologies are employed in UK laboratories, and the aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of different methods for the detection of EGFR mutations. Participating laboratories were sent coded samples with varying mutation loads (from 0% to 15%) to be tested for the p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) missense mutation and c.2235_2249del exon 19 deletion. The p.L858R mutation and deletions within exon 19 of the EGFR gene account for ∼90% of mutation-positive cases. The 11 laboratories used their standard testing method(s) and submitted 15 sets of results for the p.L858R samples and 10 for the exon 19 deletion. The p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) mutation was detected at levels between 1% and 7.5% by Sanger sequencing, pyrosequencing, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), amplification refractory mutation system, and capillary electrophoresis single-strand conformation analysis. The c.2235_2249del mutation was detected at 1% to 5% by fragment size analysis, Sanger sequencing or real-time PCR. A mutation was detected in 24/25 (96%) of the samples tested which contained 5% mutated DNA. The 1% sensitivity claimed for commercial real-time PCR-targeted EGFR tests was achieved and our results show greater sensitivity for the Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing screening methods compared to the 10% to 20% detection levels cited on clinical diagnostic reports. We conclude that multiple methodologies are suitable for the detection of acquired EGFR mutations.