4.5 Review

Genomic Microarrays in Mental Retardation: A Practical Workflow for Diagnostic Applications

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 283-292

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.20883

Keywords

array CGH; copy number variation; CNV; intellectual disability; mental retardation; microarray

Funding

  1. Dutch Brain Foundation (HsN)
  2. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development [ZonMW 907-00-058, ZonMW 917-86-319, ZonMW 920-03-338, ZonMW 917-66-363]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microarray-based copy number analysis has found its way into routine clinical practice, predominantly for the diagnosis of patients with unexplained mental retardation. However, the clinical interpretation of sub, microscopic copy number variants (CNVs) is complicated by the fact that many CNVs are also present in the general population. Here we introduce and discuss a workflow that can be used in routine diagnostics to assess the clinical significance of the CNVs identified. We applied this scheme to our cohort of 386 individuals with unexplained mental retardation tested using a genome-wide tiling-resolution DNA microarray and to 978 additional patients with mental retardation reported in 15 genome-wide microarray studies extracted from the literature. In our cohort of 386 patients we identified 25 clinically significant copy number losses (median size 2.6 Mb), nine copy number gains (median size 2.0 Mb), and one mosaic numerical chromo, some aberration. Accordingly, the overall diagnostic yield of clinically significant CNVs was 9.1%. Taken together, our cohort and the patients described in the literature include a total of 1,364 analyses of DNA copy number in which a total of 11.2% (71.9% losses, 19.6% gains, 8.5% complex) could be identified, reflecting the overall diagnostic yield of clinically significant CNVs in individuals with unexplained mental retardation. Hum Mutat 30, 283-292, 2009. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available