4.5 Article

A comparison of different metaphase CGH methods for the detection of cryptic chromosome aberrations of defined size

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 447-454

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201175

关键词

comparative genomic hybridization; chromosome aberrations; mental retardation; HR-CGH; universal linkage system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An increasing body of evidence indicates that submicroscopic gene dose alterations may cause mental impairment and malformations. During the last decade, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has become a useful tool in the detection and mapping of chromosome aberrations. Modifications of CGH with increased resolution down to 3 - 5 Mb have been reported and CGH is now offered as a diagnostic procedure in the evaluation of patients with idiopathic mental retardation (MR). In order to increase the resolution, we modified the CGH protocol using freshly prepared high-quality metaphase slides and chemical labeling, and tested the method on a set of patients with well-defined submicroscopic chromosome abnormalities with confirmed size 1.3 - 20.5 Mb. Subsequently, a completely blinded test was performed to compare the performance of the chemical labeling CGH to the commercially available HR-CGH. Using the two different CGH methods, we were able to detect chromosome imbalances down to 2 - 3 Mb approximately. The HR-CGH method detected all aberrations >6 Mb and a few smaller, while the modified CGH method was able to detect all but three aberrations >1.8 Mb. The modified CGH method was superior in the detection of terminal imbalances, while the HR-CGH software was more successful in the detection of imbalances located very close to the centromeric regions. In conclusion, the resolution of metaphase CGH may be as high as 2 - 3 Mb but is most likely depending on the chromosomal region involved, a clear limitation when used as a screening method for chromosome aberrations in patients with idiopathic MR.

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

4.5
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