Literature DB >> 19248039

De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements in prenatal diagnosis.

Daniela Giardino1, Cecilia Corti, Lucia Ballarati, Daniela Colombo, Elena Sala, Nicoletta Villa, Giuseppe Piombo, Mauro Pierluigi, Francesca Faravelli, Silvana Guerneri, Domenico Coviello, Faustina Lalatta, Ugo Cavallari, Daniela Bellotti, Sergio Barlati, Gianfranco Croci, Fabrizia Franchi, Elisa Savin, Gianfranco Nocera, Francesco Paolo Amico, Paola Granata, Rosario Casalone, Lucia Nutini, Ermanna Lisi, Francesca Torricelli, Ursula Giussani, Barbara Facchinetti, Ginevra Guanti, Marilena Di Giacomo, Francesco Paolo Susca, Vanna Pecile, Lorenza Romitti, Laura Cardarelli, Erika Racalbuto, Maria Adalgisa Police, Francamaria Chiodo, Ornella Rodeschini, Patrizia Falcone, Emilio Donti, Maria Grazia Grimoldi, Emanuela Martinoli, Sabine Stioui, Daniele Caufin, Salvatrice Antonia Lauricella, Salvatrice Antonella Tanzariello, Gianfranco Voglino, Elisabetta Lenzini, Marco Besozzi, Lidia Larizza, Leda Dalprà.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We surveyed the datasheets of 29 laboratories concerning prenatal diagnosis of de novo apparently balanced chromosome rearrangements to assess the involvement of specific chromosomes, the breakpoints distribution and the impact on the pregnancy outcome.
METHOD: By means of a questionnaire, data on 269.371 analyses performed from 1983 to 2006 on amniotic fluid, chorionic villus and fetal blood samples were collected.
RESULTS: A total of 246 balanced anomalies were detected at frequencies of 72% for reciprocal translocations, 18% for Robertsonian translocations, 7% for inversions and 3% for complex chromosome rearrangements. The total frequencies of balanced rearrangements were 0.09%, 0.08% and 0.05% on amniotic fluid, chorionic villus and fetal blood samples.
CONCLUSION: A preferential involvement of chromosomes 22, 7, 21, 3, 9 and 11 and a less involvement of chromosomes X, 19, 12, 6 and 1 was observed. A nonrandom distribution of the breakpoints across chromosomes was noticed. Association in the location of recurrent breakpoints and fragile sites was observed for chromosomes 11, 7, 10 and 22, while it was not recorded for chromosome 3. The rate of pregnancy termination was about 20%, with frequencies decreasing from complex chromosomal rearrangements (33%), reciprocal translocations (24%) to inversions (11%) and Robertsonian translocations (3%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19248039     DOI: 10.1002/pd.2215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  19 in total

Review 1.  Complex human chromosomal and genomic rearrangements.

Authors:  Feng Zhang; Claudia M B Carvalho; James R Lupski
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 11.639

2.  Risks and Recommendations in Prenatally Detected De Novo Balanced Chromosomal Rearrangements from Assessment of Long-Term Outcomes.

Authors:  Christina Halgren; Nete M Nielsen; Lusine Nazaryan-Petersen; Asli Silahtaroglu; Ryan L Collins; Chelsea Lowther; Susanne Kjaergaard; Morten Frisch; Maria Kirchhoff; Karen Brøndum-Nielsen; Allan Lind-Thomsen; Yuan Mang; Zahra El-Schich; Claire A Boring; Mana M Mehrjouy; Peter K A Jensen; Christina Fagerberg; Lotte N Krogh; Jan Hansen; Thue Bryndorf; Claus Hansen; Michael E Talkowski; Mads Bak; Niels Tommerup; Iben Bache
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Constitutional complex chromosomal rearrangements in a klinefelter patient: case report and review of literature.

Authors:  F Mahjoubi; F Razazian
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Biosafety assessment of site-directed transgene integration in human umbilical cord-lining cells.

Authors:  Jaichandran Sivalingam; Shruti Krishnan; Wai Har Ng; Sze Sing Lee; Toan Thang Phan; Oi Lian Kon
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 11.454

5.  Prenatal diagnosis of chromothripsis, with nine breaks characterized by karyotyping, FISH, microarray and whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  M J Macera; A Sobrino; B Levy; V Jobanputra; V Aggarwal; A Mills; C Esteves; C Hanscom; S Pereira; V Pillalamarri; Z Ordulu; C C Morton; M Talkowski; D Warburton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 6.  Characterizing complex structural variation in germline and somatic genomes.

Authors:  Aaron R Quinlan; Ira M Hall
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 11.639

Review 7.  Chromosomal instability in mammalian pre-implantation embryos: potential causes, detection methods, and clinical consequences.

Authors:  Brittany L Daughtry; Shawn L Chavez
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 5.249

8.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  End-joining, translocations and cancer.

Authors:  Samuel F Bunting; Andre Nussenzweig
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 60.716

10.  Complex reorganization and predominant non-homologous repair following chromosomal breakage in karyotypically balanced germline rearrangements and transgenic integration.

Authors:  Colby Chiang; Jessie C Jacobsen; Carl Ernst; Carrie Hanscom; Adrian Heilbut; Ian Blumenthal; Ryan E Mills; Andrew Kirby; Amelia M Lindgren; Skye R Rudiger; Clive J McLaughlan; C Simon Bawden; Suzanne J Reid; Richard L M Faull; Russell G Snell; Ira M Hall; Yiping Shen; Toshiro K Ohsumi; Mark L Borowsky; Mark J Daly; Charles Lee; Cynthia C Morton; Marcy E MacDonald; James F Gusella; Michael E Talkowski
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2012-03-04       Impact factor: 38.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.