Bender M A, Kastenbaum M A, Lever C S
Br J Cancer. 1972 Feb;26(1):34-42. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1972.7.
Minkler, Gofman and Tandy (1970a, b) have recently reported data on the karyotype constitutions of human tissue culture cell lines and human tumours, as gathered by a semi-automatic chromosome analysis system. The data appears to show a relationship between the relative number of "number 16" chromosomes and malignancy. We have tested the ability of the "cutting line" approach they used to correctly classify chromosomes from a sample of 723 cells from 100 normal subjects. The cutting line scheme gave very different results from those of an experienced cytogeneticist. The method also failed to give correct average numbers of chromosomes per class. We are thus led to question the conclusions reached by Minkler et al. It appears possible that their relatively consistent finding of an excess of "number 16" chromosomes in their largely hyperploid material may be an artefact of their classification scheme, arising from measurement normalization problems, rather than a reflection of a real excess of "number 16" or even of "number 16-like" chromosomes.
明克勒、戈夫曼和坦迪(1970年a、b)最近报告了关于人类组织培养细胞系和人类肿瘤核型组成的数据,这些数据是通过半自动染色体分析系统收集的。数据似乎显示了“16号”染色体的相对数量与恶性肿瘤之间的关系。我们测试了他们使用的“切割线”方法对来自100名正常受试者的723个细胞样本中的染色体进行正确分类的能力。切割线方案得出的结果与经验丰富的细胞遗传学家得出的结果大不相同。该方法也未能给出每类染色体的正确平均数。因此,我们对明克勒等人得出的结论提出质疑。有可能他们在大多为超倍体的材料中相对一致地发现“16号”染色体过多,可能是其分类方案的假象,是由测量标准化问题导致的,而不是“16号”甚至“类16号”染色体真正过多的反映。