Restriction enzyme digestion chromosome banding in Crassostrea and Ostrea species: comparative karyological analysis within Ostreidae.

Reliable banding techniques are a major necessity for genetic research in oysters. In this study, we carried out the cytogenetic characterization of four oyster species (family Ostreidae) using restriction endonuclease treatments. Chromosomes were treated with three different restriction enzymes, stained with Giemsa, and examined for banding patterns. The following species were studied: Crassostrea gigas (2n = 20; total number of bands with ApaI, 74; HaeIII, 61; PstI, 76), Crassostrea angulata (2n = 20; ApaI, 62; HaeIII, 61; PstI, 55) (subfamily Crassostreinae), Ostrea edulis (2n = 20; ApaI, 82; HaeIII, 59; PstI, 66), and Ostrea conchaphila (2n = 20; ApaI, 68; HaeIII, 62; PstI, 69) (subfamily Ostreinae). Treatment of samples with ApaI, HaeIII, and PstI produced specific banding patterns, which demonstrates the potential of these enzymes for chromosome banding in oysters. This is of special interest, since it has been recently shown in mammalian chromosomes that restriction enzyme banding is compatible with fluorescence in situ hybridization. This study therefore provides a fundamental step in genome mapping of oysters, since chromosome banding with restriction enzymes facilitates physical gene mapping in these important aquaculture species. The analysis of the banded karyotypes revealed a greater similarity within the genera of Crassostrea and Ostrea than between them.     

Stereotactic biopsy and cytological diagnosis of solid and cystic intracranial lesions

Cytological smears from 115 consecutive cases of stereotactic biopsies of intracranial lesions were reviewed. Ninety-five lesions were solid and 20 cystic. Material from 90 solid and 13 cystic lesions was sent both for cytological and histological examination. In 66 of the solid lesions, the cytological diagnosis was confirmed by histology (five were benign lesions and 61 malignant tumours: 56 primary brain tumours, three metastases and two lymphomas). In 24 cases with discrepant cytology and histology, the histology was inconclusive or insufficient in 14 cases, while cytology established the diagnosis of astrocytoma grade II (seven cases), metastases (two cases), gliosis (one case) and benign (four cases). Necrosis of tumour type was observed cytologically in six patients representing glioblastoma (two cases), anaplastic astrocytoma (one case), lymphoma (one case) and normal brain (two cases) histologically. Three cases reported cytologically as benign were primary brain tumour (two cases) and gliosis (one case). One smear of a glioblastoma was insufficient for cytological diagnosis. Cystic lesions were cytologically benign in 17 cases and malignant in three cases. Histology from the cyst wall confirmed the malignant diagnosis in three cases and showed tumour in six more cases, a benign process (two cases), changes induced by radiotherapy for arteriovenous malformation (one case) and insufficient material (one case). In conclusion, cytology from solid brain lesion allows an accurate diagnosis and subtyping of tumours in a majority of cases, and can thus be used to choose type of therapy. In cystic brain tumours, however, examination of the cystic fluid, is often inconclusive and a biopsy from the cyst wall should be performed if there is clinical or radiological suspicion of tumour.