4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Multiplex PCR of polymorphic markers flanking the CFTR gene;: a general approach for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of cystic fibrosis

期刊

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 391-396

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/6.5.391

关键词

cystic fibrosis; multiplex marker PCR; preimplantation genetic diagnosis; single cell diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the first monogenic disorder for which single cell preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been successfully applied. The spectrum of mutations in CF is extremely heterogeneous, and hence, the development of mutation-specific PGD protocols is impracticable. The current study reports the development and evaluation of a general multiplex marker polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocol for PGD of CF Four closely linked highly polymorphic (CA)(n) repeat markers D7S523, D7S486, D7S480 and D7S490, flanking the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) gene, were used. In 99% of the single cells tested (100 leukocytes and 50 blastomeres), multiplex PCR results were obtained and the overall allelic drop out (ADO) rate varied from 2 to 5%. After validation for the presence of ADO and additional alleles, 95% of the multiplex PCR results were accepted to construct the marker genotypes. Depending on the genotype of the couple, and taking into account the embryos lost for transfer due to validation criteria (5%), ADO (0-2%) and single recombination (1.1-3%), in general >90% of the embryos could be reliably genotyped by PGD using a single blastomere. The risk of misdiagnosis equals the chance of a double recombination between informative flanking markers and is <0.05%. Therefore, this polymorphic and multi-allelic marker system is a reliable and generally applicable alternative for mutation-directed PGD protocols. Furthermore, it provides a test for the origin of the detected genotype and also gives an indication of the chromosomal ploidy status of the blastomere tested.

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