Literature DB >> 19876905

Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in the genetic evaluation of stillbirth.

Gordana Raca1, Amber Artzer, Laura Thorson, Suzanne Huber, Peggy Modaff, Jennifer Laffin, Richard M Pauli.   

Abstract

This study examined the utility of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in detecting genetic abnormalities associated with late pregnancy loss. Comparisons were made with classic cytogenetics to test whether aCGH represents a superior methodology for the clinical evaluation of stillbirth. Stillborn infants were selected for aCGH testing from the Wisconsin Stillbirth Service Program (WiSSP) database and tissue bank, based on abnormal clinical findings (presence of at least two abnormalities of two different organs or parts of the body). aCGH analysis was successfully completed in 15 cases which met the clinical criteria and for which sufficient amount of high quality DNA was recovered from archival material. The testing was performed using commercially available 1 Mb BAC arrays. Among 15 tested stillborns, aCGH detected two abnormalities (trisomy 21 and an unbalanced translocation between chromosomes 3 and 10), for an overall detection rate of 13% in stillborns with malformations who had normal or unobtainable cytogenetic results. This preliminary study supports the clinical value of aCGH testing in diagnostic evaluation of stillborns with congenital anomalies. Copyright 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19876905     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  9 in total

Review 1.  From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine: progress and challenges.

Authors:  Diana W Bianchi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Genome-wide array-based copy number profiling in human placentas from unexplained stillbirths.

Authors:  R Alan Harris; Francesca Ferrari; Shay Ben-Shachar; Xiaoling Wang; George Saade; Ignatia Van Den Veyver; Fabio Facchinetti; Kjersti Aagaard-Tillery
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 3.  Recent advances of genomic testing in perinatal medicine.

Authors:  David G Peters; Svetlana A Yatsenko; Urvashi Surti; Aleksandar Rajkovic
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 3.300

4.  Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth.

Authors:  Uma M Reddy; Grier P Page; George R Saade; Robert M Silver; Vanessa R Thorsten; Corette B Parker; Halit Pinar; Marian Willinger; Barbara J Stoll; Josefine Heim-Hall; Michael W Varner; Robert L Goldenberg; Radek Bukowski; Ronald J Wapner; Carolyn D Drews-Botsch; Barbara M O'Brien; Donald J Dudley; Brynn Levy
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Comprehensive genetic analysis of pregnancy loss by chromosomal microarrays: outcomes, benefits, and challenges.

Authors:  Trilochan Sahoo; Natasa Dzidic; Michelle N Strecker; Sara Commander; Mary K Travis; Charles Doherty; R Weslie Tyson; Arturo E Mendoza; Mary Stephenson; Craig A Dise; Carlos W Benito; Mandolin S Ziadie; Karine Hovanes
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Practice guideline: joint CCMG-SOGC recommendations for the use of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis and assessment of fetal loss in Canada.

Authors:  Christine M Armour; Shelley Danielle Dougan; Jo-Ann Brock; Radha Chari; Bernie N Chodirker; Isabelle DeBie; Jane A Evans; William T Gibson; Elena Kolomietz; Tanya N Nelson; Frédérique Tihy; Mary Ann Thomas; Dimitri J Stavropoulos
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Best diagnostic approach for the genetic evaluation of fetuses after intrauterine death in first, second or third trimester: QF-PCR, karyotyping and/or genome wide SNP array analysis.

Authors:  Angelique Ja Kooper; Brigitte Hw Faas; Ilse Feenstra; Nicole de Leeuw; Dominique Fcm Smeets
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 2.009

8.  Rescue karyotyping: a case series of array-based comparative genomic hybridization evaluation of archival conceptual tissue.

Authors:  Rashmi Kudesia; Marilyn Li; Janice Smith; Ankita Patel; Zev Williams
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 5.211

9.  Submicroscopic chromosomal imbalances contribute to early abortion.

Authors:  Haibo Li; Minjuan Liu; Min Xie; Qin Zhang; Jingjing Xiang; Chengying Duan; Yang Ding; Yinghua Liu; Jun Mao; Ting Wang; Hong Li
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2018-07-21       Impact factor: 2.009

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.