BACKGROUND: Karyotype analysis has been the standard method for prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis since the 1970s. Although highly reliable, the major limitation remains the requirement for cell culture, resulting in a delay of as much as 14 days to obtaining test results. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR) rapidly detect common chromosomal abnormalities but do not provide a genome wide screen for unexpected imbalances. Array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) has the potential to combine the speed of DNA analysis with a large capacity to scan for genomic abnormalities. We have developed a genomic microarray of approximately 600 large insert clones designed to detect aneuploidy, known microdeletion syndromes, and large unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements. METHODS: This array was tested alongside an array with an approximate resolution of 1 Mb in a blind study of 30 cultured prenatal and postnatal samples with microscopically confirmed unbalanced rearrangements. RESULTS: At 1 Mb resolution, 22/30 rearrangements were identified, whereas 29/30 aberrations were detected using the custom designed array, owing to the inclusion of specifically chosen clones to give increased resolution at genomic loci clinically implicated in known microdeletion syndromes. Both arrays failed to identify a triploid karyotype. Thirty normal control samples produced no false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of 30 uncultured prenatal samples showed that array CGH is capable of detecting aneuploidy in DNA isolated from as little as 1 ml of uncultured amniotic fluid; 29/30 samples were correctly diagnosed, the exception being another case of triploidy. These studies demonstrate the potential for array CGH to replace conventional cytogenetics in the great majority of prenatal diagnosis cases.
BACKGROUND: Karyotype analysis has been the standard method for prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis since the 1970s. Although highly reliable, the major limitation remains the requirement for cell culture, resulting in a delay of as much as 14 days to obtaining test results. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR) rapidly detect common chromosomal abnormalities but do not provide a genome wide screen for unexpected imbalances. Array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) has the potential to combine the speed of DNA analysis with a large capacity to scan for genomic abnormalities. We have developed a genomic microarray of approximately 600 large insert clones designed to detect aneuploidy, known microdeletion syndromes, and large unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements. METHODS: This array was tested alongside an array with an approximate resolution of 1 Mb in a blind study of 30 cultured prenatal and postnatal samples with microscopically confirmed unbalanced rearrangements. RESULTS: At 1 Mb resolution, 22/30 rearrangements were identified, whereas 29/30 aberrations were detected using the custom designed array, owing to the inclusion of specifically chosen clones to give increased resolution at genomic loci clinically implicated in known microdeletion syndromes. Both arrays failed to identify a triploid karyotype. Thirty normal control samples produced no false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of 30 uncultured prenatal samples showed that array CGH is capable of detecting aneuploidy in DNA isolated from as little as 1 ml of uncultured amniotic fluid; 29/30 samples were correctly diagnosed, the exception being another case of triploidy. These studies demonstrate the potential for array CGH to replace conventional cytogenetics in the great majority of prenatal diagnosis cases.
Authors: Ajay N Jain; Taku A Tokuyasu; Antoine M Snijders; Richard Segraves; Donna G Albertson; Daniel Pinkel Journal: Genome Res Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Heike Fiegler; Philippa Carr; Eleanor J Douglas; Deborah C Burford; Sarah Hunt; Carol E Scott; James Smith; David Vetrie; Patricia Gorman; Ian P M Tomlinson; Nigel P Carter Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: H Fiegler; S M Gribble; D C Burford; P Carr; E Prigmore; K M Porter; S Clegg; J A Crolla; N R Dennis; P Jacobs; N P Carter Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: R G Ryall; D Callen; R Cocciolone; A Duvnjak; R Esca; N Frantzis; E M Gjerde; E A Haan; T Hocking; G Sutherland; D W Thomas; F Webb Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Lisenka E L M Vissers; Bert B A de Vries; Kazutoyo Osoegawa; Irene M Janssen; Ton Feuth; Chik On Choy; Huub Straatman; Walter van der Vliet; Erik H L P G Huys; Anke van Rijk; Dominique Smeets; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Nine V Knoers; Ineke van der Burgt; Pieter J de Jong; Han G Brunner; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Eric F P M Schoenmakers; Joris A Veltman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-11-18 Impact factor: 11.025
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: Heike Fiegler; Richard Redon; Dan Andrews; Carol Scott; Robert Andrews; Carol Carder; Richard Clark; Oliver Dovey; Peter Ellis; Lars Feuk; Lisa French; Paul Hunt; Dimitrios Kalaitzopoulos; James Larkin; Lyndal Montgomery; George H Perry; Bob W Plumb; Keith Porter; Rachel E Rigby; Diane Rigler; Armand Valsesia; Cordelia Langford; Sean J Humphray; Stephen W Scherer; Charles Lee; Matthew E Hurles; Nigel P Carter Journal: Genome Res Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Angelique J A Kooper; Brigitte H W Faas; Ton Feuth; Johan W T Creemers; Hans H Zondervan; Peter F Boekkooi; Rik W P Quartero; Robbert J P Rijnders; Ineke van der Burgt; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Arie P T Smits Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2008-12-12 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Ji Hyeon Park; Jung Hoon Woo; Sung Han Shim; Song-Ju Yang; Young Min Choi; Kap-Seok Yang; Dong Hyun Cha Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Xin-Yan Lu; Mai T Phung; Chad A Shaw; Kim Pham; Sarah E Neil; Ankita Patel; Trilochan Sahoo; Carlos A Bacino; Pawel Stankiewicz; Sung-Hae Lee Kang; Seema Lalani; A Craig Chinault; James R Lupski; Sau W Cheung; Arthur L Beaudet Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Michael Egmont-Petersen; Irene M Janssen; Dominique Smeets; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Joris A Veltman Journal: DNA Res Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 4.458