4.5 Article

Practical guidelines for interpreting copy number gains detected by high-resolution array in routine diagnostics

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 161-165

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.174

Keywords

genome-wide array analysis; copy number gain; microduplication; guideline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The correct interpretation of copy number gains in patients with developmental delay and multiple congenital anomalies is hampered by the large number of copy number variations (CNVs) encountered in healthy individuals. The variable phenotype associated with copy number gains makes interpretation even more difficult. Literature shows that inheritence, size and presence in healthy individuals are commonly used to decide whether a certain copy number gain is pathogenic, but no general consensus has been established. We aimed to develop guidelines for interpreting gains detected by array analysis using array CGH data of 300 patients analysed with the 105K Agilent oligo array in a diagnostic setting. We evaluated the guidelines in a second, independent, cohort of 300 patients. In the first 300 patients 797 gains of four or more adjacent oligonucleotides were observed. Of these, 45.4% were de novo and 54.6% were familial. In total, 94.8% of all de novo gains and 87.1% of all familial gains were concluded to be benign CNVs. Clinically relevant gains ranged from 288 to 7912 kb in size, and were significantly larger than benign gains and gains of unknown clinical relevance (P<0.001). Our study showed that a threshold of 200 kb is acceptable in a clinical setting, whereas heritability does not exclude a pathogenic nature of a gain. Evaluation of the guidelines in the second cohort of 300 patients revealed that the interpretation guidelines were clear, easy to follow and efficient. European Journal of Human Genetics (2012) 20, 161-165; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.174; published online 21 September 2011

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