4.4 Article

Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray

期刊

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1156-1166

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2371

关键词

array CGH; chromosome abnormality; copy number variant; targeted; whole-genome; prenatal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the detection rates of whole-genome microarray technology compared to targeted microarray analysis for chromosome abnormalities in prenatal samples submitted for diagnostic testing. Methods Microarray analysis using either whole-genome bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC)-based and oligonucleotide (oligo)-based microarrays or targeted BAC microarrays was performed oil 182 and 62 prenatal cases. respectively. from North American healthcare providers Without previously known chromosome abnormalities or family history of a parent with a known chromosome rearrangement. Results Microarray analysis identified clinically significant chromosome alterations in 7 out of 182 (3.8%) prenatal specimens, two of which each had two unrelated abnormalities. After excluding two of the cases in which the abnormality Would have been identified by routine karyotyping, the diagnostic yield of clinically significant findings was 5 Out of 182 (2.7%). One case had a finding Of unclear significance (0.5%) and 16 cases had benign copy number variants (CNVs) (8.8%). Targeted microarray analysis combined with previously published data demonstrated detection rates of 0.9% for clinically significant results, 0.5% For results of unclear significance, and 8.0% for benign CNVs. Conclusions Whole-genome prenatal aCGH detected clinically significant submicroscopic chromosome abnormalities in addition to chromosome abnormalities that could be identified by concurrent karyotyping-without ail increase in unclear results or benign CNVs compared to targeted aCGH. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据