Table 1.

Comparison of Radioactive and ET-CAE Fluorescent LOH Assays

Locus D9S747 D9S162 D9S171 IFN-A
sample set RA FL ratio RA FL ratio RA FL ratio RA FL ratio
1 NINI– – LOH .77 – – LOH .68 – –– –
2 NINI– –– – – – – – – –– –
3 NINI– – LOH .69 – – LOH .54 NINI
4 NINININI– –– –– –– –
5 – –– –– – LOH/MI .57 – –– –– –– –
6 LOH – – .90 – – LOH .37 NI LOH/MI .11 NINI
7 – –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –
8 NINI LOH LOH .11 – – LOH .48 NINI
9 – –– –NINI– –– –– –– –
10 – – LOH .74 – –– –– – LOH .78 – –– –
11 LOH – – .86 NINI– –– –– –– –
12 NINI– –– –– –– –– –– –
13 – –– –NINI– – LOH .68 – –– –
14 – –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –
15 – –– –NINININI– –– –
16 – –– – LOH LOH .76 – –– –– –– –
17 – –– – LOH LOH .41 – –– –– –– –
18 – –– –– –– –NINI– –– –
19 NINI– –– –NINININI
20 – –– –– –– –– –– –NINI
21 UNUN LOH LOH .75 – –– – LOH UN1
22 LOH LOH .36 LOH LOH/MI .76 LOH LOH .38 LOH LOH .30
23 – – LOH .59 NINI LOH LOH .50 – –– –
24 LOH LOH .07 LOH UN[ix] LOH LOH .78 LOH LOH .56
25 – –– –– –– –– – LOH .77 – –– –
26 NI LOH .33 LOH/MI UN– – LOH .55 – –– –

[i] (RA) LOH assay via radioisotope labeling and analysis (as described in Eisenberger et al. 1999; Mao et al. 1996; Steiner et al. 1997).

[ii] (FL) Fluorescent ET-CAE LOH assay as described in Methods.

[iii] (– –) Indicates no LOH detected.

[iv] Ratio: Normalized allelic ratio for fluorescent assay.

[v] (NI) Not informative, locus genotyped as a homozygote.

[vi] (LOH) Indicates LOH detected by method indicated with an allelic ratio variation of 20% which is considered diagnostically significant (Wang et al. 1997).

[vii] (MI) Microsatellite repeat instability detected.

[viii] (UN) Unable to assay/interpret (possible PCR failure, etc.) or  1Incomplete analysis due to limited sample DNA.

[ix] Unable to resolve alleles clearly on MegaBACE system.