OBJECTIVE: To assess the yield of array-based comparative genomic hybridization. STUDY DESIGN: The results of array comparative genomic hybridization were collected on 1500 consecutive clinical cases sent to our laboratory for a variety of developmental problems. Confirmation fluorescence in situ hybridization of metaphase or interphase cells, depending on the aberration, was performed. RESULTS: Of the 1500 cases, 134 (8.9%) showed an abnormality: 36 (2.4%) showed polymorphisms or familial variants, 14 (0.9%) showed alterations of unknown clinical significance, and 84 (5.6%) showed clinically relevant genomic alterations. These included subtelomeric deletions and unbalanced rearrangements, microdeletions and reciprocal duplications, rare abnormalities, and low-level trisomy mosaicism. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted array detects a substantial proportion of abnormalities even in those patients who have already had extensive cytogenetic and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization testing. This study, although not a controlled ascertainment of subjects with specific selection criteria, accurately reflects the reality of clinical cytogenetic practice and provides an estimate of the cytogenetic abnormalities that can be identified with a targeted microarray in a diagnostic laboratory. Microarray analysis likely doubles the current yield of abnormal results detected by conventional cytogenetic analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the yield of array-based comparative genomic hybridization. STUDY DESIGN: The results of array comparative genomic hybridization were collected on 1500 consecutive clinical cases sent to our laboratory for a variety of developmental problems. Confirmation fluorescence in situ hybridization of metaphase or interphase cells, depending on the aberration, was performed. RESULTS: Of the 1500 cases, 134 (8.9%) showed an abnormality: 36 (2.4%) showed polymorphisms or familial variants, 14 (0.9%) showed alterations of unknown clinical significance, and 84 (5.6%) showed clinically relevant genomic alterations. These included subtelomeric deletions and unbalanced rearrangements, microdeletions and reciprocal duplications, rare abnormalities, and low-level trisomy mosaicism. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted array detects a substantial proportion of abnormalities even in those patients who have already had extensive cytogenetic and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization testing. This study, although not a controlled ascertainment of subjects with specific selection criteria, accurately reflects the reality of clinical cytogenetic practice and provides an estimate of the cytogenetic abnormalities that can be identified with a targeted microarray in a diagnostic laboratory. Microarray analysis likely doubles the current yield of abnormal results detected by conventional cytogenetic analysis.
Authors: Danielle Veenma; Erwin Brosens; Elisabeth de Jong; Cees van de Ven; Connie Meeussen; Titia Cohen-Overbeek; Marjan Boter; Hubertus Eussen; Hannie Douben; Dick Tibboel; Annelies de Klein Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Antina de Jong; Wybo J Dondorp; Merryn V E Macville; Christine E M de Die-Smulders; Jan M M van Lith; Guido M W R de Wert Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Bixia Xiang; Hongbo Zhu; Yiping Shen; David T Miller; Kangmo Lu; Xiaofeng Hu; Hans C Andersson; Tarachandra M Narumanchi; Yueying Wang; Jose E Martinez; Bai-Lin Wu; Peining Li; Marilyn M Li; Tian-Jian Chen; Yao-Shan Fan Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Yue Luo; Karen E Hermetz; Jodi M Jackson; Jennifer G Mulle; Anne Dodd; Karen D Tsuchiya; Blake C Ballif; Lisa G Shaffer; Jannine D Cody; David H Ledbetter; Christa L Martin; M Katharine Rudd Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2011-07-04 Impact factor: 6.150
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
Authors: Binita M Kamath; Brian D Thiel; Xiaowu Gai; Laura K Conlin; Pedro S Munoz; Joseph Glessner; Dinah Clark; Daniel M Warthen; Tamim H Shaikh; Ercan Mihci; David A Piccoli; Struan F A Grant; Hakon Hakonarson; Ian D Krantz; Nancy B Spinner Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 4.878