PURPOSE: We developed a microarray for clinical diagnosis of chromosomal disorders using large insert genomic DNA clones as targets for comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). METHODS: The array contains 362 FISH-verified clones that span genomic regions implicated in over 40 known human genomic disorders and representative subtelomeric clones for each of the 41 clinically relevant human chromosome telomeres. Three or four clones from almost all deletion or duplication genomic regions and three or more clones for each subtelomeric region were included. We tested chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) in a masked fashion by examining genomic DNA from 25 patients who were previously ascertained in a genetic clinic and studied by conventional cytogenetics. A novel software package implemented in the R statistical programming language was developed for normalization, visualization, and inference. RESULTS: The CMA results were entirely consistent with previous cytogenetic and FISH findings. For clone by clone analysis, the sensitivity was estimated to be 96.7% and the specificity was 99.1%. Major advantages of this selected human genome array include the following: interrogation of clinically relevant genomic regions, the ability to test for a wide range of duplication and deletion syndromes in a single analysis, the ability to detect duplications that would likely be undetected by metaphase FISH, and ease of confirmation of suspected genomic changes by conventional FISH testing currently available in the cytogenetics laboratory. CONCLUSION: The array is an attractive alternative to telomere FISH and locus-specific FISH, but it does not include uniform coverage across the arms of each chromosome and is not intended to substitute for a standard karyotype. Limitations of CMA include the inability to detect both balanced chromosome changes and low levels of mosaicism.
PURPOSE: We developed a microarray for clinical diagnosis of chromosomal disorders using large insert genomic DNA clones as targets for comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). METHODS: The array contains 362 FISH-verified clones that span genomic regions implicated in over 40 known human genomic disorders and representative subtelomeric clones for each of the 41 clinically relevant human chromosome telomeres. Three or four clones from almost all deletion or duplication genomic regions and three or more clones for each subtelomeric region were included. We tested chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) in a masked fashion by examining genomic DNA from 25 patients who were previously ascertained in a genetic clinic and studied by conventional cytogenetics. A novel software package implemented in the R statistical programming language was developed for normalization, visualization, and inference. RESULTS: The CMA results were entirely consistent with previous cytogenetic and FISH findings. For clone by clone analysis, the sensitivity was estimated to be 96.7% and the specificity was 99.1%. Major advantages of this selected human genome array include the following: interrogation of clinically relevant genomic regions, the ability to test for a wide range of duplication and deletion syndromes in a single analysis, the ability to detect duplications that would likely be undetected by metaphase FISH, and ease of confirmation of suspected genomic changes by conventional FISH testing currently available in the cytogenetics laboratory. CONCLUSION: The array is an attractive alternative to telomere FISH and locus-specific FISH, but it does not include uniform coverage across the arms of each chromosome and is not intended to substitute for a standard karyotype. Limitations of CMA include the inability to detect both balanced chromosome changes and low levels of mosaicism.
Authors: Francesca Gullotta; Michela Biancolella; Elena Costa; Isabella Colapietro; Anna Maria Nardone; Paolo Molinaro; Adalgisa Pietropolli; Marianovella Narcisi; Cristiana Di Rosa; Giuseppe Novelli Journal: J Prenat Med Date: 2007-01
Authors: Paweł Stankiewicz; Shashikant Kulkarni; Avinash V Dharmadhikari; Srirangan Sampath; Samarth S Bhatt; Tamim H Shaikh; Zhilian Xia; Amber N Pursley; M Lance Cooper; Marwan Shinawi; Alex R Paciorkowski; Dorothy K Grange; Michael J Noetzel; Scott Saunders; Paul Simons; Marshall Summar; Brendan Lee; Fernando Scaglia; Florence Fellmann; Danielle Martinet; Jacques S Beckmann; Alexander Asamoah; Kathryn Platky; Susan Sparks; Ann S Martin; Suneeta Madan-Khetarpal; Jacqueline Hoover; Livija Medne; Carsten G Bonnemann; John B Moeschler; Stephanie E Vallee; Sumit Parikh; Polly Irwin; Victoria P Dalzell; Wendy E Smith; Valerie C Banks; David B Flannery; Carolyn M Lovell; Gary A Bellus; Kathryn Golden-Grant; Jerome L Gorski; Jennifer L Kussmann; Tracy L McGregor; Rizwan Hamid; Jean Pfotenhauer; Blake C Ballif; Chad A Shaw; Sung-Hae L Kang; Carlos A Bacino; Ankita Patel; Jill A Rosenfeld; Sau Wai Cheung; Lisa G Shaffer Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Philip M Boone; Carlos A Bacino; Chad A Shaw; Patricia A Eng; Patricia M Hixson; Amber N Pursley; Sung-Hae L Kang; Yaping Yang; Joanna Wiszniewska; Beata A Nowakowska; Daniela del Gaudio; Zhilian Xia; Gayle Simpson-Patel; LaDonna L Immken; James B Gibson; Anne C-H Tsai; Jennifer A Bowers; Tyler E Reimschisel; Christian P Schaaf; Lorraine Potocki; Fernando Scaglia; Tomasz Gambin; Maciej Sykulski; Magdalena Bartnik; Katarzyna Derwinska; Barbara Wisniowiecka-Kowalnik; Seema R Lalani; Frank J Probst; Weimin Bi; Arthur L Beaudet; Ankita Patel; James R Lupski; Sau Wai Cheung; Pawel Stankiewicz Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Zhishuo Ou; Paweł Stankiewicz; Zhilian Xia; Amy M Breman; Brian Dawson; Joanna Wiszniewska; Przemyslaw Szafranski; M Lance Cooper; Mitchell Rao; Lina Shao; Sarah T South; Karlene Coleman; Paul M Fernhoff; Marcel J Deray; Sally Rosengren; Elizabeth R Roeder; Victoria B Enciso; A Craig Chinault; Ankita Patel; Sung-Hae L Kang; Chad A Shaw; James R Lupski; Sau W Cheung Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Daniel A Peiffer; Jennie M Le; Frank J Steemers; Weihua Chang; Tony Jenniges; Francisco Garcia; Kirt Haden; Jiangzhen Li; Chad A Shaw; John Belmont; Sau Wai Cheung; Richard M Shen; David L Barker; Kevin L Gunderson Journal: Genome Res Date: 2006-08-09 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Kevin L Knudtson; Herbert Auer; Andrew I Brooks; Chandi Griffin; George Grills; Susan Hester; Gregory Khitrov; Kathryn S Lilley; Aldo Massimi; Jay P Tiesman; Agnes Viale Journal: J Biomol Tech Date: 2006-04
Authors: Neil A Hanchard; David R Murdock; Pilar L Magoulas; Matthew Bainbridge; Donna Muzny; YuanQing Wu; Min Wang; James R Lupski; Richard A Gibbs; Chester W Brown Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: S R Lalani; J V Thakuria; G F Cox; X Wang; W Bi; M S Bray; C Shaw; S W Cheung; A C Chinault; B A Boggs; Z Ou; E K Brundage; J R Lupski; J Gentile; S Waisbren; A Pursley; L Ma; M Khajavi; G Zapata; R Friedman; J J Kim; J A Towbin; P Stankiewicz; S Schnittger; I Hansmann; T Ai; S Sood; X H Wehrens; J F Martin; J W Belmont; L Potocki Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Lina Shao; Chad A Shaw; Xin-Yan Lu; Trilochan Sahoo; Carlos A Bacino; Seema R Lalani; Pawel Stankiewicz; Svetlana A Yatsenko; Yinfeng Li; Sarah Neill; Amber N Pursley; A Craig Chinault; Ankita Patel; Arthur L Beaudet; James R Lupski; Sau W Cheung Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 2.802