Literature DB >> 22086062

From karyotyping to array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis.

K D Lichtenbelt1, N V A M Knoers, G H Schuring-Blom.   

Abstract

Conventional karyotyping detects chromosomal anomalies in up to 35% of pregnancies with fetal ultrasound anomalies, depending on the number and type of these anomalies. Extensive experience gained in the past decades has shown that prenatal karyotyping is a robust technique which can detect the majority of germline chromosomal anomalies. For most of these anomalies the phenotype is known. In postnatal diagnosis of patients with congenital anomalies and intellectual disability, array-CGH/SNP array has become the first-tier investigation. The higher abnormality detection yield and its amenability to automation renders array-CGH also suitable for prenatal diagnosis. As both findings of unclear significance and unexpected findings may be detected, studies on the outcome of array-CGH in prenatal diagnosis were initially performed retrospectively. Recently, prospective application of array-CGH in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies, and to a lesser extent in pregnancies referred for other reasons, was studied. Array-CGH showed an increased diagnostic yield compared to karyotyping, varying from 1-5%, depending on the reason for referral. Knowledge of the spectrum of array-CGH anomalies detected in the prenatal setting will increase rapidly in the years to come, thus facilitating pre- and posttest counseling. Meanwhile, new techniques like non-invasive prenatal diagnosis are emerging and will claim their place. In this review, we summarize the outcome of studies on prenatal array-CGH, the clinical relevance of differences in detection rate and range as compared to standard karyotyping, and reflect on the future integration of new molecular techniques in the workflow of prenatal diagnosis.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22086062     DOI: 10.1159/000334065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytogenet Genome Res        ISSN: 1424-8581            Impact factor:   1.636


  14 in total

1.  Congenital diaphragmatic hernia interval on chromosome 8p23.1 characterized by genetics and protein interaction networks.

Authors:  Mauro Longoni; Kasper Lage; Meaghan K Russell; Maria Loscertales; Omar A Abdul-Rahman; Gareth Baynam; Steven B Bleyl; Paul D Brady; Jeroen Breckpot; Chih P Chen; Koenraad Devriendt; Gabriele Gillessen-Kaesbach; Arthur W Grix; Alan F Rope; Osamu Shimokawa; Bernarda Strauss; Dagmar Wieczorek; Elaine H Zackai; Caroline M Coletti; Faouzi I Maalouf; Kristin M Noonan; Ji H Park; Adam A Tracy; Charles Lee; Patricia K Donahoe; Barbara R Pober
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 2.802

2.  Supernumerary marker chromosomes derived from chromosome 6: cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and array CGH characterization.

Authors:  Bing Huang; Phyllis Pearle; Katherine A Rauen; Philip D Cotter
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Do physicians think genomic medicine will be useful for patient care?

Authors:  Sridharan Raghavan; Jason L Vassy
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 4.  Nanostructures in non-invasive prenatal genetic screening.

Authors:  Samira Sadeghi; Mahdi Rahaie; Bita Ostad-Hasanzadeh
Journal:  Biomed Eng Lett       Date:  2021-10-11

5.  22q11.2 deletions in patients with conotruncal defects: data from 1,610 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Shabnam Peyvandi; Philip J Lupo; Jennifer Garbarini; Stacy Woyciechowski; Sharon Edman; Beverly S Emanuel; Laura E Mitchell; Elizabeth Goldmuntz
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 1.655

Review 6.  Human molecular cytogenetics: From cells to nucleotides.

Authors:  Mariluce Riegel
Journal:  Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.771

7.  Prenatal Diagnosis of Cystic Hygroma related to a Deletion of 16q24.1 with Haploinsufficiency of FOXF1 and FOXC2 Genes.

Authors:  Matthew J Garabedian; Donna Wallerstein; Nubia Medina; James Byrne; Robert J Wallerstein
Journal:  Case Rep Genet       Date:  2012-08-28

Review 8.  Implementation of high resolution whole genome array CGH in the prenatal clinical setting: advantages, challenges, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Paola Evangelidou; Angelos Alexandrou; Maria Moutafi; Marios Ioannides; Pavlos Antoniou; George Koumbaris; Ioannis Kallikas; Voula Velissariou; Carolina Sismani; Philippos C Patsalis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  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

10.  Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results.

Authors:  Barbara A Bernhardt; Danielle Soucier; Karen Hanson; Melissa S Savage; Laird Jackson; Ronald J Wapner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.