Rubin Wang1, Jenny Carter, Nicholas Lench. 1. NE Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children , London, United Kingdom .
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the use of real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) as a diagnostic tool for follow up of abnormal microarray (aCGH) results. METHOD: qPCR was performed on 207 samples with known aCGH results to detect chromosomal abnormality and determine the capability of qPCR. Eighty-four samples were processed and the results compared with the original aCGH result and with one or more of the alternative follow-up methods: aCGH, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or karyotyping. A separate cohort of 107 samples was used to determine critical threshold values for qPCR. A further 16 samples were assessed in reproducibility and sensitivity studies. RESULTS: All qPCR findings were consistent with the original aCGH results, and qPCR was found to be a superior follow-up method compared to FISH and karyotyping. Critical threshold values were also determined from this study. CONCLUSION: In this study, qPCR analysis identified all copy number changes. qPCR is an accurate, rapid, reliable, and inexpensive technique for confirming copy number changes, and for determining the inheritance of such abnormalities to aid interpretation of results. We also present the critical threshold values required for qPCR as a practical tool. This technique has now been successfully implemented as part of the clinical diagnostic service within our laboratory.
AIM: To evaluate the use of real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) as a diagnostic tool for follow up of abnormal microarray (aCGH) results. METHOD: qPCR was performed on 207 samples with known aCGH results to detect chromosomal abnormality and determine the capability of qPCR. Eighty-four samples were processed and the results compared with the original aCGH result and with one or more of the alternative follow-up methods: aCGH, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or karyotyping. A separate cohort of 107 samples was used to determine critical threshold values for qPCR. A further 16 samples were assessed in reproducibility and sensitivity studies. RESULTS: All qPCR findings were consistent with the original aCGH results, and qPCR was found to be a superior follow-up method compared to FISH and karyotyping. Critical threshold values were also determined from this study. CONCLUSION: In this study, qPCR analysis identified all copy number changes. qPCR is an accurate, rapid, reliable, and inexpensive technique for confirming copy number changes, and for determining the inheritance of such abnormalities to aid interpretation of results. We also present the critical threshold values required for qPCR as a practical tool. This technique has now been successfully implemented as part of the clinical diagnostic service within our laboratory.
Authors: Graham R Bignell; Jing Huang; Joel Greshock; Stephen Watt; Adam Butler; Sofie West; Mira Grigorova; Keith W Jones; Wen Wei; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal; Barbara Weber; Michael H Shapero; Richard Wooster Journal: Genome Res Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Linda Siggberg; Sirpa Ala-Mello; Elisa Jaakkola; Esa Kuusinen; Robert Schuit; Jürgen Kohlhase; Detlef Böhm; Jaakko Ignatius; Sakari Knuutila Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Ingo Kurth; Eva Klopocki; Sigmar Stricker; Jolieke van Oosterwijk; Sebastian Vanek; Jens Altmann; Heliosa G Santos; Jeske J T van Harssel; Thomy de Ravel; Andrew O M Wilkie; Andreas Gal; Stefan Mundlos Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Peng Lin; Sarah M Hartz; Jen-Chyong Wang; Arpana Agrawal; Tian-Xiao Zhang; Nicholas McKenna; Kathleen Bucholz; Andrew I Brooks; Jay A Tischfield; Howard J Edenberg; Victor M Hesselbrock; John R Kramer; Samuel Kuperman; Marc A Schuckit; Alison M Goate; Laura J Bierut; John P Rice Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jonathan Sebat; B Lakshmi; Dheeraj Malhotra; Jennifer Troge; Christa Lese-Martin; Tom Walsh; Boris Yamrom; Seungtai Yoon; Alex Krasnitz; Jude Kendall; Anthony Leotta; Deepa Pai; Ray Zhang; Yoon-Ha Lee; James Hicks; Sarah J Spence; Annette T Lee; Kaija Puura; Terho Lehtimäki; David Ledbetter; Peter K Gregersen; Joel Bregman; James S Sutcliffe; Vaidehi Jobanputra; Wendy Chung; Dorothy Warburton; Mary-Claire King; David Skuse; Daniel H Geschwind; T Conrad Gilliam; Kenny Ye; Michael Wigler Journal: Science Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Rosanna Weksberg; Simon Hughes; Laura Moldovan; Anne S Bassett; Eva W C Chow; Jeremy A Squire Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 3.969