4.6 Article

Sites of Differential DNA Methylation between Placenta and Peripheral Blood Molecular Markers for Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Aneuploidies

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 174, 期 5, 页码 1609-1618

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.081038

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [LSHB-CT-2004-503243]
  2. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of epigenetic differences between maternal whole blood and fetal (placental) DNA is one of the main areas of interest for the development of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies. However, the lack of detailed chromosome-wide identification of differentially methylated sites has limited the application of this approach. in this study, we describe an analysis of chromosome-wide methylation status using methylation DNA immunoprecipitation coupled with high-resolution tiling oligonucleotide array analysis specific for chromosomes 21, 18, 1.3, X, and Y using female whole blood and placental DNA. We identified more than 2000 regions of differential methylation between female whole blood and placental DNA on each of the chromosomes tested. A subset of the differentially methylated regions identified was validated by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Additionally, correlation of these regions with CpG islands, genes, and promoter regions was investigated. Between 56 to 83% of the regions were located within nongenic regions whereas only 1 to 11% of the regions overlapped with CpG islands; of these, up to 65% were found in promoter regions. In summary, we identified a large number of previously unreported fetal epigenetic molecular markers that have the potential to be developed into targets for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 mid other common aneuploidies. In addition, we demonstrated the effectiveness of the methylation DNA immunoprecipitation approach in the enrichment of hypermethylated fetal DNA. (Am J Pathol 2009, 174: 1609-1618 DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.081038)

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

4.6
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