{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02731512325116589, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014656895403064623, 'mean_word_length': 5.418803418803419, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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 (FISH) and chromogenic (CISH) in situ hybridisation in prostate carcinoma cell lines: comparison and use of virtual microscopy

Abstract Chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) has become an attractive alternative to fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) due to its permanent stain which is more familiar to pathologists and because it can be viewed using light microscopy. The aim of the present study is to examine reproducibility in the assessment of abnormal chromosome number by CISH in comparison to FISH. Using three prostate cell lines – PNT1A (derived from normal epithelium), LNCAP and DU145 (derived from prostatic carcinoma), chromosomes 7 and 8 were counted in 40 nuclei in FISH preparations (x100 oil immersion) and 100 nuclei in CISH preparations (x40) by two independent observers. The CISH slides were examined using standard light microscopy and virtual microscopy. Reproducibility was examined using paired Student’s t-test (P<0.05). Reproducibility between observers was good for both FISH and CISH. No significant differences in chromosome count were seen between the techniques. Chromosomes 7 and 8 showed disomic status for each cell line except LNCAP, which proved to be heterogeneous (disomic/aneusomic), particularly for chromosome 8. Virtual microscopy proved to be easy to use and gave no significant differences from standard light microscopy. These results support the hypothesis that there is no significant difference between FISH and CISH techniques.