4.3 Article

An efficient protocol for the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous miscarriages or foetal deaths

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.07.023

关键词

Spontaneous miscarriages; Karyotype; Chromosomal abnormalities; CGH; Touch FISH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Characterization of chromosomal abnormalities in 232 spontaneous miscarriages or foetal deaths using both classical and molecular cytogenetics. Study design: Chromosomal abnormalities are responsible for 40-50% of all early pregnancy losses. Conventional cytogenetics is associated with 10-40% of culture failure. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a DNA-based technique that screens chromosome imbalances in the whole genome and may overcome this problem, although additional methods are required to distinguish between different ploidies, mosaicisms and maternal cell contamination. For a full characterization of chromosomal aberrations in 232 spontaneous miscarriages or foetal deaths we applied a sequential protocol that uses conventional cytogenetics, plus CGH and touch fluorescence in situ hybridization (Touch FISH). Results: Successful karyotyping was obtained in 173/232 (74.6%) of the cases, 66/173 (38.2%) of which had an abnormal chromosomal complement. CGH and Touch FISH analyses revealed another 19 abnormal cases in the 63 failures of culture. Overall there were 85/233 (36.6%) cases with an abnormal chromosomal complement, with examples from all three trimesters. Comparing cases, with or without chromosomal abnormalities, no statistical differences were found between women with one or recurrent miscarriages. On the contrary, significant differences were found comparing mean maternal ages or mean gestational ages, in cases with or without chromosomes abnormalities. Conclusion: Adopting this sequential protocol, chromosomal complement information was available even in cases with culture failure. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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