Fig. 2: Comparison of different methods for the detection of FGFR2 translocations/fusions. | British Journal of Cancer

Fig. 2: Comparison of different methods for the detection of FGFR2 translocations/fusions.

From: Genomic architecture of FGFR2 fusions in cholangiocarcinoma and its implication for molecular testing

Fig. 2: Comparison of different methods for the detection of FGFR2 translocations/fusions.

a Main principle of fluorescence in situ hybridisation using break-apart probes (BA) and dual fusion probes (Dual), imbalance assay, amplicon (AMP)-based, single-primer extension (SPE)-based, and hybrid-capture (HyCa)-based NGS. b Theoretical performance of the different assays for specific fusion events. The first two rows provide the results for the wild-type and a known fusion partner as references. FISH: Separate or overlapping fluorescence signals are indicated by green and red dots or a yellow dot, respectively. Imbalance: The bars represent the number of RNA molecules detected considering the 5’ or 3’ region. RNA-seq and DNA-seq: Red cross indicates that a fusion event was not detectable by an assay. Wide and narrow bars represent exonic and intronic regions, respectively. c Characteristics and informative value of the different assays.

Back to article page