This protocol provides a reproducible method to visualize gene amplification in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens.
Focal gene amplification, such as extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA), plays an important role in cancer development and therapy resistance. While sequencing-based methodologies enable an unbiased identification of ecDNA, cytogenetic-based techniques, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), remain time and cost-effective for identifying ecDNA in clinical specimens. The application of FISH in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples offers a unique avenue for detecting amplified genes, particularly when viable specimens are not available for karyotype examination. However, there is a lack of consensus procedures for this technique. This protocol provides comprehensive, fully optimized, step-by-step instructions for conducting FISH to detect gene amplification, including ecDNA, in FFPE tissue samples which present unique challenges that this protocol aims to overcome and standardize. By following this protocol, researchers can reproducibly acquire high-quality imaging data to assess gene amplification.
The study of focal oncogene amplification is crucial as it drives cancer formation, progression, and therapy resistance1. Importantly, oncogenes and immunoregulatory genes may amplify as extrachromosomal DNAs (ecDNA), whose asymmetric inheritance promotes genetic heterogeneity in cancer2,3. ecDNA has been linked to therapy resistance and unfavorable clinical outcomes4,5,6.
Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens represent a vast archival resource in pathology laboratories, offering abundant information for retrospective studies. However, extracting molecular data from FFPE specimens through PCR or sequencing is challenging due to nucleic acid fragmentation, degradation, and cross-linking during fixation7. Among the array of techniques available for molecular analysis of FFPE tissues, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) has proven effective for visualizing specific DNA sequences8.
Despite the advancement of modern molecular diagnostic techniques, the ability of FISH to visualize and quantify gene amplification at the single-cell level provides valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying tumorigenesis and clinical outcomes. By using fluorescently labeled probes complementary to the target gene of interest, FISH can conveniently resolve the localization of an oncogene and may infer the form of oncogene amplification (such as ecDNA) within individual cells, which is otherwise impossible or expensive through other technologies. Therefore, FISH offers an economical way to assess tumor heterogeneity and clonal evolution9. Furthermore, advances in automation, imaging, and computational analysis have facilitated high-throughput analysis of FISH data, enabling robust quantification of gene amplification across large tissue cohorts10.
However, applying FISH to FFPE tissue presents inherent challenges, including cross-linking artifacts and background autofluorescence. Overcoming these obstacles requires careful optimization of each procedure to ensure accurate and reproducible results. This paper provides a step-by-step, fully optimized protocol for applying FISH to investigate gene amplification in FFPE tissue samples. Using a probe targeting the ERBB2 (HER2) gene locus, we demonstrate that FISH can robustly detect ERBB2 amplification status in FFPE samples from breast cancer patients. It is even possible to estimate whether ERBB2 is amplified as ecDNAs. By synthesizing existing literature and our experimental findings, we elucidate the methodological considerations, technical challenges, and potential pitfalls of FISH-based analysis. We also discuss the clinical relevance of gene amplification profiling in various cancer types, highlighting its prognostic significance and potential for personalized therapeutic strategies.
In summary, this paper underscores the importance of FISH as a valuable tool for studying gene amplification in FFPE tissue specimens, offering unparalleled insights into tumor biology and guiding clinical decision-making in oncology. With continued refinement and integration with complementary molecular assays, FISH-based analysis stands poised to further enhance our understanding of cancer pathogenesis and improve patient outcomes in the era of precision medicine.
This research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to surgery.
1. Reagents and materials preparation
2. Sample pretreatment
NOTE: The slide used here contains the specimen.
3. FISH and imaging
We used FFPE samples from both HER2-positive and negative breast cancers to demonstrate the result of FISH imaging. Amplification of HER2 (encoded by the ERBB2 gene) is a favorable marker due to the availability and effectiveness of HER2 molecular targeting therapies. On the contrary, patients with triple-negative breast cancers, which lack expression of HER2, estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PR), face poor outcomes due to limited therapeutic options. Therefore, determining the HER2 status is crucial in breast cancer research and treatment15.
In the triple-negative breast cancer sample, most nuclei display two distinct dots representing HER2/ERBB2 FISH signals. Some nuclei may only have one dot due to sectioning bias (Figure 2, left). In contrast, HER2-positive samples present abundant FISH signals with two different patterns. One pattern shows scattered dots throughout the nucleus (Figure 2, middle). This pattern is a characteristic of ecDNA morphology, as ecDNAs may not occupy a unique and organized nuclear territory16. Furthermore, ecDNAs' asymmetric segregation during mitosis drives copy number variation, leading to signal heterogeneity among nuclei17. Some nuclei may show occasional clusters, indicative of ecDNA hubs18 (Figure 2, right). The other type of HER2 amplification primarily displays rod-shaped, condensed aggregates. This morphology likely indicates chromosome-based amplification, such as homogeneously staining regions (HSR)19 or through the breakage-fusion-bridge (BFB) cycle20. Notably, ecDNA, HSR, and BFB amplification can co-exist in the same nucleus. Therefore, examining multiple nuclei is recommended to infer the form of focal amplification.
Figure 1: Schematic for FISH in FFPE samples. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Representative FISH image in breast cancer FFPE samples. Magnification: 600x; Scale bar: 10 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
FISH is a fast and affordable option for cytogenetic diagnosis. Especially in determining whether ecDNA is present in cancer, FISH evidence remains the gold standard1. FISH in FFPE tissue allows rapid determination of gene status in a patient's biopsy specimens, allowing for quicker diagnosis and tracking changes throughout the disease's progress. This technique is particularly valuable for testing clinical samples that have already been collected for pathology.
This protocol involves several critical steps. The first step is thorough deparaffinization. Residual paraffin can disrupt FISH hybridization. If the sample still appears waxy after step 2, it should be treated again with fresh xylene or its substitutes.
Second, protein extraction and digestion are critical. These processes not only enhance the DNA's accessibility to the FISH probe but also significantly reduce auto-fluorescence. This protocol includes three deproteinization steps. While the treatment with 0.2 N HCl and 10 mM citric acid is straightforward, the proteinase K digestion may require optimization. Over-digestion is the most common error when using proteinase K, resulting in halo-shaped nuclei. Shortening the digestion time will improve the nuclei morphology. Additionally, it is recommended not to digest more than four samples simultaneously to minimize the time difference between the first and the last sample. It is important to note that even an intact nucleus may appear as a halo under high-magnification and high-resolution microscopy. This is because the nucleus is not on the same focal plane. Therefore, it is suggested to take multiple Z-stacks and perform a max projection to inspect the nuclear morphology.
Lastly, quenching autofluorescence is recommended. Although acid extraction and proteinase K digestion can significantly reduce protein-derived background, fluorescent metabolites may still affect the imaging quality.
While FISH offers unparalleled spatial resolution in identifying focal gene amplification, it has limitations. First, the content and throughput are low compared to PCR or next-generation sequencing (NGS) based approaches. Typically, one to three FISH probes of different colors can be applied to a single slide without specialized equipment. Nonetheless, advancements in automation technologies have made high-content and high-throughput FISH, such as in situ sequencing21, feasible. Second, the FISH probe design requires prior information. The ongoing efforts to identify recurrent focal amplification events in cancer have enabled the creation of pre-designed FISH panels for laboratory and clinical applications. For instance, MYC-family oncogenes are frequently amplified as ecDNA in small-cell lung cancer to mediate chemotherapy resistance. Therefore, a FISH panel targeting MYC, MYCL, and MYCN genes can expedite the determination of treatment responses in biopsies. In comparison, NGS allows a more unbiased screening of genes of interest. However, among NGS-based technologies, only whole-genome sequencing with computation-expensive analysis22 can characterize ecDNA.
In summary, we present robust and comprehensive instructions for investigating focal gene amplification in FFPE samples. By examining the FISH signal pattern, it becomes unequivocally clear whether and how a gene locus is amplified. We anticipate the integration of machine learning into the image analysis23 of interphase nuclei to extract cytogenetic information regarding copy number and the form of amplification (chromosome or ecDNA), thereby streamlining the molecular diagnosis process and enhancing our understanding of pathogenetic mechanisms in cancer.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
S.W. is a scholar of and is supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RR210034)
DAPI | Tocris Bioscience | 5748 | Nucleus staining |
Dextran sulfate 50% solution | EMD Millipore Sigma | S4030 | Probe hybridization buffer |
ERBB2 (HER2) FISH Probe | Empire Genomics | ERBB2-20-RE | FISH probe |
Ethanol | Decon Labs | 2716 | Dehydrating and hydrating tissue |
Formamide | Thermo Scientific Chemicals | 205821000 | Probe hybridization buffer |
Formula 83 (Xylene substitute) | CBG Biotech | CH0104A | Removing paraffin |
Hydrochloric acid | Fisher Chemical | A144-500 | Sample pretreatment |
IGEPAL CA-630 | Thermo Scientific Chemicals | J19628K2 | Slide washing |
Proclin 300 | Sigma-Aldrich | 48914-U | Preservative for SSC buffer (optional) |
Proteinase K (800 units/mL) | New England Biolabs | P8107S | Protein digestion |
RNase A (20 mg/mL) | New England Biolabs | T3018L | Probe hybridization buffer |
Slide Moat Hybridization System | Boekel Scientific | 280001 | Sample denature and hybridization. Alternative hot plates are acceptable. |
Sodium chloride | Fisher Chemical | S2713 | SSC buffer |
Sodium citrate dihydrate | Fisher BioReagents | FLBP3271 | SSC buffer and sample pretreatment |
Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer | Fisher BioReagents | BP2473500 | Proteinase K digestion buffer |
Tween-20 | Fisher BioReagents | BP337-500 | Probe hybridization buffer |
Vectashield antifade mounting media | Vector Laboratories | H190010 | Slide mounting |
Vector TrueVIEW | Vector Laboratories | SP8400 | Autofluorescence quenching kit |
.