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	NI	NI		– –	LOH	.77	– –	LOH	.68	– –	– –
2	NI	NI		– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –
3	NI	NI		– –	LOH	.69	– –	LOH	.54	NI	NI
4	NI	NI		NI	NI		– –	– –		– –	– –
5	– –	– –		– –	LOH/MI	.57	– –	– –		– –	– –
6	LOH	– –	.90	– –	LOH	.37	NI	LOH/MI	.11	NI	NI
7	– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –
8	NI	NI		LOH	LOH	.11	– –	LOH	.48	NI	NI
9	– –	– –		NI	NI		– –	– –		– –	– –
10	– –	LOH	.74	– –	– –		– –	LOH	.78	– –	– –
11	LOH	– –	.86	NI	NI		– –	– –		– –	– –
12	NI	NI		– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –
13	– –	– –		NI	NI		– –	LOH	.68	– –	– –
14	– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –
15	– –	– –		NI	NI		NI	NI		– –	– –
16	– –	– –		LOH	LOH	.76	– –	– –		– –	– –
17	– –	– –		LOH	LOH	.41	– –	– –		– –	– –
18	– –	– –		– –	– –		NI	NI		– –	– –
19	NI	NI		– –	– –		NI	NI		NI	NI
20	– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	– –		NI	NI
21	UN	UN		LOH	LOH	.75	– –	– –		LOH	UN1
22	LOH	LOH	.36	LOH	LOH/MI	.76	LOH	LOH	.38	LOH	LOH	.30
23	– –	LOH	.59	NI	NI		LOH	LOH	.50	– –	– –
24	LOH	LOH	.07	LOH	UN2		LOH	LOH	.78	LOH	LOH	.56
25	– –	– –		– –	– –		– –	LOH	.77	– –	– –
26	NI	LOH	.33	LOH/MI	UN		– –	LOH	.55	– –	– –

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

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

(– –) Indicates no LOH detected. 

Ratio: Normalized allelic ratio for fluorescent assay. 

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

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

(MI) Microsatellite repeat instability detected. 

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

²Unable to resolve alleles clearly on MegaBACE system.