Literature DB >> 19362174

Array analysis and karyotyping: workflow consequences based on a retrospective study of 36,325 patients with idiopathic developmental delay in the Netherlands.

Ron Hochstenbach1, Ellen van Binsbergen, John Engelen, Aggie Nieuwint, Abeltje Polstra, Pino Poddighe, Claudia Ruivenkamp, Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz, Dominique Smeets, Martin Poot.   

Abstract

Anomalies of chromosome number and structure are considered to be the most frequent cause of unexplained, non-syndromic developmental delay and mental retardation (DD/MR). High-resolution, genome-wide, array-based segmental aneusomy profiling has emerged as a highly sensitive technique for detecting pathogenic genomic imbalances. A review of 29 array-based studies of DD/MR patients showed that a yield of at least approximately 19% pathogenic aberrations is attainable in unselected, consecutive DD/MR referrals if array platforms with 30-70 kb median probe spacing are used as an initial genetic testing method. This corresponds to roughly twice the rate of classical cytogenetics. This raises the question whether chromosome banding studies, combined with targeted approaches, such as fluorescence in situ hybridisation for the detection of microdeletions, still hold substantial relevance for the clinical investigation of these patients. To address this question, we reviewed the outcome of cytogenetic studies in all 36,325 DD/MR referrals in the Netherlands during the period 1996-2005, a period before the advent of array-based genome investigation. We estimate that in a minimum of 0.78% of all referrals a balanced chromosomal rearrangement would have remained undetected by array-based investigation. These include familial rearrangements (0.48% of all referrals), de novo reciprocal translocations and inversions (0.23% of all referrals), de novo Robertsonian translocations (0.04% of all referrals), and 69,XXX triploidy (0.03% of all referrals). We conclude that karyotyping, following an initial array-based investigation, would give only a limited increase in the number of pathogenic abnormalities, i.e. 0.23% of all referrals with a de novo, apparently balanced, reciprocal translocation or inversion (assuming that all of these are pathogenic), and 0.03% of all referrals with 69,XXX triploidy. We propose that, because of its high diagnostic yield, high-resolution array-based genome investigation should be the first investigation performed in cases of DD/MR, detecting >99% of all pathogenic abnormalities. Performing both array investigation and karyotyping may not be a feasible option when laboratories are faced with a need to limit the number of genetic tests available for each patient. However, laboratories that supplant karyotyping by array-based investigation should be aware that, as shown here, a chromosomal abnormality, with possible pathogenic consequences for the patient or the family, will escape detection in about 0.78% of all DD/MR referrals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19362174     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2009.03.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Med Genet        ISSN: 1769-7212            Impact factor:   2.708


  61 in total

1.  Caregiver and adult patient perspectives on the importance of a diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

Authors:  G Costain; E W C Chow; P N Ray; A S Bassett
Journal:  J Intellect Disabil Res       Date:  2011-12-06

2.  Microdeletion at 4q21.3 is associated with intellectual disability, dysmorphic facies, hypotonia, and short stature.

Authors:  Lynn Dukes-Rimsky; Gregory F Guzauskas; Kenton R Holden; Rachel Griggs; Sydney Ladd; Maria del Carmen Montoya; Barbara R DuPont; Anand K Srivastava
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Double, Double Toil and Trouble.

Authors:  Martin Poot
Journal:  Mol Syndromol       Date:  2015-07-21

4.  Avoiding pitfalls in molecular genetic testing: case studies of high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization testing in the definitive diagnosis of Mowat-Wilson syndrome.

Authors:  Michael Joseph Kluk; Yu An; Philip James; David Coulter; David Harris; Bai-Lin Wu; Yiping Shen
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 5.  "Idiopathic" mental retardation and new chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Cinzia Galasso; Adriana Lo-Castro; Nadia El-Malhany; Paolo Curatolo
Journal:  Ital J Pediatr       Date:  2010-02-14       Impact factor: 2.638

6.  Balanced into array: genome-wide array analysis in 54 patients with an apparently balanced de novo chromosome rearrangement and a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilse Feenstra; Nicolien Hanemaaijer; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Helger Yntema; Trijnie Dijkhuizen; Dorien Lugtenberg; Joke Verheij; Andrew Green; Roel Hordijk; William Reardon; Bert de Vries; Han Brunner; Ernie Bongers; Nicole de Leeuw; Conny van Ravenswaaij-Arts
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Fading competency of cytogenetic diagnostic laboratories: the alarm bell has started to ring.

Authors:  Ron Hochstenbach; Anna Slunga-Tallberg; Caroline Devlin; Giovanna Floridia; Marta Rodríguez de Alba; Shama Bhola; Katrina Rack; Ros Hastings
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  Discovering Patterns of Structural Variation by Mining Molecular Fossils.

Authors:  Martin Poot
Journal:  Mol Syndromol       Date:  2016-10-21

Review 9.  Chromosomal Microarrays: Understanding Genetics of Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Congenital Anomalies.

Authors:  Jill A Rosenfeld; Ankita Patel
Journal:  J Pediatr Genet       Date:  2016-05-30

10.  Recurrent copy number changes in mentally retarded children harbour genes involved in cellular localization and the glutamate receptor complex.

Authors:  Martin Poot; Marc J Eleveld; Ruben van 't Slot; Hans Kristian Ploos van Amstel; Ron Hochstenbach
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.