{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020714285714285713, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002142857142857143, 'mean_word_length': 6.221649484536083, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) in Diagnostic and Investigative Neuropathology

Over the last decade, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has emerged as a powerful clinical and research tool for the assessment of target DNA dosages within interphase nuclei. Detectable alterations include aneusomies, deletions, gene amplifications, and translocations, with primary advantages to the pathologist including its basis in morphology, its applicability to archival, formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) material, and its similarities to immunohistochemistry. Recent technical advances such as improved hybridization protocols, markedly expanded probe availability resulting from the human genome sequencing initiative, and the advent of high‐throughput assays such as gene chip and tissue microarrays have greatly enhanced the applicability of FISH. In our lab, we currently utilize only a limited battery of DNA probes for routine diagnostic purposes, with determination of chromosome 1p and 19q dosage in oligodendroglial neoplasms representing the most common application. However, research applications are numerous and will likely translate into a growing list of clinically useful markers in the near future. In this review, we highlight the advantages and disadvantages of FISH and familiarize the reader with current applications in diagnostic and investigative neuropathology.