Literature DB >> 24146428

Perspective on the technical challenges involved in the implementation of array-CGH in prenatal diagnostic testing.

Jonathan L A Callaway1, Shuwen Huang, Evangelia Karampetsou, John A Crolla.   

Abstract

Our aim was to construct a streamlined technical workflow to facilitate a prospective, multi-centre evaluation of array comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) in the prenatal diagnostic context. A collection of commercially available DNA extraction and quantification techniques were evaluated and compared using minimal quantities of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi and cultured cells. When prenatal DNA of suitable quality and quantity was obtained, array-CGH was performed using Oxford Gene Technology's (OGT, Oxford, UK) CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. With starting quantities of 2-4 ml amniotic fluid, 2-5 mg chorionic villi or under 150,000 cultured cells the following optimised technical workflow was identified: DNA extraction using the iGENatal™ kit (igenbiotech, Madrid, Spain) and quantification by the Qubit® 2.0 Fluorometer with the Qubit® dsDNA BR assay kit (Invitrogen™, Eugene, OR, USA). In addition, it was elucidated that array-CGH can be successfully performed with as little as 125 ng DNA in the experiment using the OGT CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. Amidst an on-going debate on whether array-CGH should be applied in the prenatal diagnostic setting, by following the technical recommendations described here genetics laboratories can now gain exposure to prenatal array-CGH testing without compromising the conventional karyotype result.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24146428     DOI: 10.1007/s12033-013-9710-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Biotechnol        ISSN: 1073-6085            Impact factor:   2.695


  9 in total

1.  Array CGH analysis in high-risk pregnancies: comparing DNA from cultured cells and cell-free fetal DNA.

Authors:  Nicolas Gruchy; Matthieu Decamp; Nicolas Richard; Corinne Jeanne-Pasquier; Guillaume Benoist; Hervé Mittre; Nathalie Leporrier
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies.

Authors:  C-N Lee; S-Y Lin; C-H Lin; J-C Shih; T-H Lin; Y-N Su
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases.

Authors:  Francesco Fiorentino; Fiorina Caiazzo; Stefania Napolitano; Letizia Spizzichino; Sara Bono; Mariateresa Sessa; Andrea Nuccitelli; Anil Biricik; Anthony Gordon; Giuseppe Rizzo; Marina Baldi
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 4.  Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and review of the literature.

Authors:  Amy Breman; Amber N Pursley; Patricia Hixson; Weimin Bi; Patricia Ward; Carlos A Bacino; Chad Shaw; James R Lupski; Arthur Beaudet; Ankita Patel; Sau W Cheung; Ignatia Van den Veyver
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  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

6.  Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities.

Authors:  Francesco Fiorentino; Stefania Napoletano; Fiorina Caiazzo; Mariateresa Sessa; Sara Bono; Letizia Spizzichino; Anthony Gordon; Andrea Nuccitelli; Giuseppe Rizzo; Marina Baldi
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases.

Authors:  Sang-Jin Park; Ho-Young Kang; Eun Hye Jung; Ran-Suk Ryu; Hyun Woong Kang; Jung-Min Ko; Hyon J Kim; Chong Kun Cheon; Sang-Hyun Hwang
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 2.009

8.  Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Lluís Armengol; Julián Nevado; Clara Serra-Juhé; Alberto Plaja; Carmen Mediano; Fe Amalia García-Santiago; Manel García-Aragonés; Olaya Villa; Elena Mansilla; Cristina Preciado; Luis Fernández; María Ángeles Mori; Lidia García-Pérez; Pablo Daniel Lapunzina; Luis Alberto Pérez-Jurado
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies.

Authors:  Lisa G Shaffer; Mindy P Dabell; Allan J Fisher; Justine Coppinger; Anne M Bandholz; Jay W Ellison; J Britt Ravnan; Beth S Torchia; Blake C Ballif; Jill A Rosenfeld
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.050

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Marta Freitas; Joel Pinto; Carla Ramalho; Sofia Dória
Journal:  Porto Biomed J       Date:  2018-07-03

2.  Genome-Wide Transcriptional Excavation of Dipsacus asperoides Unmasked both Cryptic Asperosaponin Biosynthetic Genes and SSR Markers.

Authors:  Jian-Ying Wang; Yan-Li Liang; Mei-Rong Hai; Jun-Wen Chen; Zheng-Jie Gao; Qian-Qian Hu; Guang-Hui Zhang; Sheng-Chao Yang
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 5.753

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.