Literature DB >> 31687045

Genetic analysis of products of conception using a HLPA/SNP-array strategy.

Jun Mao1,2, Huiling Wang3, Haibo Li4, Xiaoyan Song1,2, Ting Wang1,2, Jingjing Xiang1,2, Hong Li1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetal chromosomal abnormalities was the most frequent cause of miscarriage, and the traditional testing method G-banded karyotyping has limitations. Then high-throughput ligation-dependent probe amplification (HLPA) and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-array) were introduced for genetic analysis on products of conception (POC).
METHODS: HLPA and SNP-array analysis were combined. POC samples were initially tested using HLPA, followed by SNP-array analysis on samples that were found to be normal by HLPA.
RESULTS: Of the 326 POC samples tested, the overall abnormality rate was 54.6% (178/326), including 44.8% (146/326) chromosomal abnormalities identified by HLPA and 9.8% (32/326) additional chromosomal abnormalities further detected by SNP-array.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of HLPA and SNP-array analysis is an efficient and cost-effective strategy for genetic analysis of POC.
© The Author(s). 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HLPA; SNP-array; chromosomal abnormality; miscarriage; products of conception

Year:  2019        PMID: 31687045      PMCID: PMC6822274          DOI: 10.1186/s13039-019-0452-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Cytogenet        ISSN: 1755-8166            Impact factor:   2.009


Background

Miscarriage is defined as the spontaneous loss of pregnancy before 24 weeks of gestation, and 10-15% of clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage [1]. Multiple factors are associated with miscarriage, including genetic, structural, infective, endocrine, immune factors and so on [2]. Among these, fetal chromosomal anomalies was the most frequent cause, which accounts for more than 50% of first-trimester miscarriage [3]. G-banded karyotyping is the conventional cytogenetic technique used in analysis of products of conception (POC), which could detect chromosomal aneuploidies, structural abnormalities, duplications or deletions (>5-10Mb), polyploidies and mosaicism. However, it has several limitations such as low resolution, high rates of culture failure and long reporting time [4]. Then some rapid techniques for genetic testing of chromosomal aneuploidies have emerged including quantitative fluorescent PCR (QF-PCR), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), BACs-on-Beads (BOBs) and multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), but these techniques also have drawbacks such as restricted coverage and resolution on the whole genome due to limited number of chromosomal probes [5]. The advent of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and next generation sequencing (NGS) enable us to identify submicroscopic imbalances on the whole genome with higher resolution [6, 7]. CMA includes array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-array) , and it is considered to be the fist-tier testing for detection of copy number variations (CNVs)[8]. In 2016, a new approach called high-throughput ligation-dependent probe amplification (HLPA) was established for genetic analysis of POC, which has been proved to be a rapid and accurate method for aneuploidy screening of 24 chromosomes in spontaneous abortion specimens [9, 10]. In this study, a HLPA/SNP-array strategy was applied to detect chromosomal abnormalities in POC, and the results indicated that the HLPA/SNP-array strategy was an efficient and economic method with improved diagnostic yield.

Methods

Samples

This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and written informed consent were obtained from all participants in the study. A total of three hundred and twenty six specimens of spontaneous abortion including chorionic villi and fetal tissues were collected at the Center for Reproduction and Genetics, the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, and the mean gestational age was 9.4 weeks (range: 5.1-17.1 weeks). The received POC samples were rinsed by saline solution immediately, and chorionic villi were separated using needles under a dissecting microscope. Then genomic DNA was extracted by QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany), and maternal cell contamination were ruled out for all the 326 samples by short tandem repeat (STR) profiling using Microreader™ 21 (Direct) ID System (Microread, Suzhou, China), which was used to simultaneously amplify 20 STR loci and the amelogenin gender marker.

HLPA assay

HLPA assay was conducted using a Human 24 Chromosomes Aneuploidy Detection Kit (N9002, Genesky, Suzhou, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, 200 ng of genomic DNA was added into a ligation premix for ligation reaction, then the ligation products were amplified by PCR reaction. PCR products were diluted and analyzed by capillary electrophoresis using an ABI 3130 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Data analysis was performed by GeneMapper 5 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and CNV Reader 1.0 (Genesky, Suzhou, China). The CNV value of each target was calculated with a cut-off value 0.8-1.2 for one copy, 1.6-2.3 for two copies, and 2.5-3.5 for three copies. The CNV values of all probes on a chromosome between 2.5 to 3.5 suggest trisomy, while the CNV values of all probes on a chromosome in the range of 0.8 to 1.2 indicates monosomy. The CNV values of at least three consecutive probes on a chromosome within 2.5-3.5 or 0.8-1.2 may suggest partial duplication or partial deletion on the chromosome, and CNV values of at least three consecutive probes on a chromosome within 2.3-2.5 or 1.3-1.5 may indicate mosaicism or contamination.

SNP-array analysis

The SNP-array analysis was performed on the Affymetrix CytoScan platform (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol. In brief, 250 ng of genomic DNA was digested, ligated, PCR amplified, purified, fragmented, labelled and hybridized to the Affymetrix 750K array, which includes 550,000 CNV markers and 200,000 SNP markers. After washing, staining and scanning of arrays, raw data were analyzed by Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) 3.2 (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA). CNVs were called at an minimum length of 50 kb containing at least 20 contiguous markers, and interpreted according to the standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants released by the American College of Medical Genetics [11].

Results

No maternal cell contamination was detected in all 326 POC samples. The analysis strategy used in this study was summarized in Fig. 1. A total of 326 spontaneous abortion specimens were successfully tested using HPLA, and 146 samples of which yielded abnormal results (146/326, 44.8%). The remaining 180 samples with normal HPLA results were further analyzed by SNP-array, and abnormal results were observed in 32 cases (32/326, 9.8%).
Fig. 1

The analysis strategy of spontaneous abortion specimens

The analysis strategy of spontaneous abortion specimens

Abnormalities identified by HPLA

The results of HPLA revealed that 146 of 326 samples (44.8%) had chromosomal abnormalities. Among these, autosomal trisomy accounts for the largest proportion (116/146, 79.5%), followed by monosomy X (15/146, 10.3%), mosaicism or triploidy (9/146, 6.2%), partial imbalance (4/146, 2.7%), and autosomal monosomy (2/146, 1.4%) (Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 3a, the HPLA results of 9 cases indicated that the CNV values of probes on X-chromosome were between 1.3-1.5, the CNV values of probes on Y-chromosome were between 0.6-0.8, and the ratio of CNV values of probes on autosomes, X-chromosome and Y-chromosome was about 3:2:1. Therefore, these 9 cases might be genetic mosaic 46,XX/46,XY or 69, XXY triploidy. 4 cases were found to have partial imbalance including deletion of 8p, duplication of 11q, partial deletion of 8p and partial duplication of 8q, and partial duplication of 5p and partial deletion of 13q (Fig. 3b-e). 2 cases with autosomal monosomy were monosomy 21.
Fig. 2

Abnormal results of HPLA

Fig. 3

Copy number variation measurements of five POC samples by HPLA. Chromosomal loci for probes were displayed in the x-axis, and y-axis showed the calculated copy number. CNVs were indicated by red arrows. (a) genetic mosaic 46,XX/46,XY or 69, XXY triploidy; (b) deletion of 8p; (c) duplication of 11q; (d) partial deletion of 8p and partial duplication of 8q; (e) partial duplication of 5p and partial deletion of 13q

Abnormal results of HPLA Copy number variation measurements of five POC samples by HPLA. Chromosomal loci for probes were displayed in the x-axis, and y-axis showed the calculated copy number. CNVs were indicated by red arrows. (a) genetic mosaic 46,XX/46,XY or 69, XXY triploidy; (b) deletion of 8p; (c) duplication of 11q; (d) partial deletion of 8p and partial duplication of 8q; (e) partial duplication of 5p and partial deletion of 13q

Abnormalities detected by SNP-array

One hundred eighty samples of spontaneous abortion tested to be normal by HPLA were further analyzed by SNP-array, and 32 samples (32/326, 9.8%) yielded abnormal results, including CNV, triploidy and loss of heterozygosity (LOH). Among these, CNV was the most common abnormality (23/32, 71.8%), which was divided into five subgroups: microduplication (7/32, 21.8%), mosaic microduplication (3/32, 9.4%), microdeletion (2/32, 6.25%), mosaic microdeletion (2/32, 6.25%) and microduplicationµdeletion (9/32, 28.1%) (Fig. 4, Table 1). 7 cases were found to be 69, XXX triploidy, accounting for 21.8% of all the abnormalities. And 2 cases (2/32, 6.25%) were tested to have LOH, including paternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 7 and 27.532Mbp LOH at 5p15.33p14.1 containing the key region of Cri du Chat Syndrome. In addition, 9 samples tested to be genetic mosaic 46,XX/46,XY or 69, XXY triploidy by HPLA were also analyzed by SNP-array, and the results indicated that all these samples were 69, XXY triploidy. And 4 cases reported to have partial imbalance by HPLA were confirmed by SNP-array.
Fig. 4

Abnormal results of SNP-array

Table 1

CNVs identified by SNP-array in spontaneous abortions

No.SNP-array resultTypeInterpretation
1

2p25.3p24.1 (2,506,047-23,993,512)x4, 21.49Mb;

2p25.3 (12,770-2,500,096)x1, 2.49Mb;

17q21.2q25.3 (39,043,284-81,041,823)x2-3; 42Mb, 30%.

Mosaic duplication, duplication&deletionPathogenic
2

10q26.11q26.3 (121,370,630-135,426,836)x3, 14.06Mb;

12q24.33 (131,262,269-133,257,821)x3, 1.99Mb.

DuplicationPathogenic
3Xq13.1q21.31 (71,514,629-88,581,567)x1-2, 17Mb, 22%.Mosaic deletionVOUS
419p13.3p12(260,911-22,318,810)x1-2, 22Mb, 27%.Mosaic deletionVOUS
5

6q23.2q27(133,299,322-170,914,297)x1-2, 37.62Mb, 53%; 6q25.3 (159,279,821-160,261,361)x3, 0.98Mb;

6q25.3q27(160,264,660-164,813,573)x1, 4.55Mb;

6q27(164,836,468-166,972,621)x3, 2.14Mb;

6q27(166,973,398-170,914,297)x1, 3.94Mb.

Mosaic deletion, duplication&deletionPathogenic
615q25.1q26.3 (79,052,984-102,429,040)x2-3, 23.38Mb, 32%Mosaic duplicationVOUS
7

7q33q36.3 (134,801,449-159,119,707)x1, 24.32Mb, 7q terminal deletion syndrome;

11q21q25(96,159,484-134,937,416)x3, 38.78Mb, 11q terminal duplication syndrome.

Duplication&deletionPathogenic
819q12(28,870,035-29,879,116)x4, 1.00MbDuplicationLikely benign, maternal origin
9

7q36.3 (155,329,202-157,529,779)x4, 2.20Mb;

7q36.3 (157,536,855-158,879,019)x1, 1.34Mb;

19p13.3p12(260,911-58,956,816)x1-2, chr19, 34%.

Mosaic deletion, duplication&deletionPathogenic, de novo
10Xp22.31 (7,143,928-7,690,002)x1, 0.55MbDeletionLikely benign
1118p11.21 (13,800,292-14,348,385)x3, 0.55MbDuplicationLikely benign
12

9p24.3p21.1 (208,454-28,535,563)x2-3, 28.32Mb, 58%;

18q21.31q23(54,265,846-78,013,728)x1, 23.74Mb;

18q21.2q21.31 (50,986,553-54,069,099)x3, 3.08Mb

Mosaic duplication, duplication&deletionPathogenic
13

4q31.23q35.2 (149,107,084-190,957,460)x3, 41.85Mb;

7q34q36.3 (143,084,599-159,119,707)x1, 16.04Mb

Duplication&deletionPathogenic
14Xp22.31 (6,455,150-8,135,568)x2, 1.68Mb.DuplicationLikely benign, maternal origin
151p22.2 (89,523,245-91,159,433)x1, 1.64Mb.DeletionVOUS
167q22.1q36.3 (101,562,358-159,119,707)x2-3, 57.56Mb, 37%.Mosaic duplicationVOUS
17

5p15.33p13.3 (113,576-29,104,386)x3, 28.99Mb;

13q22.3q34(77,782,493-115,011,636)x1, 37.23Mb.

Duplication&deletionPathogenic
182q37.3 (238,138,565-238,616,893)x3, 0.48Mb.DuplicationLikely benign
1912q24.23 (119,276,763-119,682,258)x3, 0.41Mb.DuplicationVOUS
2020p12.3p12.2 (8,633,732-9,375,262)x3, 0.74Mb.DuplicationVOUS
21

2q37.1q37.3 (235,368,568-237,312,027)x4, 1.94Mb;

2q37.3 (238,781,791-242,782,258)x1, 4Mb.

Duplication&deletionPathogenic
22

18q22.2q23(68,019,984-78,013,728)x1, 9.99Mb;

3q27.3q29(186,570,452-195,835,968)x3, 9.27Mb.

Duplication&deletionPathogenic
2320p13q13.33 (61,661-62,913,645)x2-3, 62.85Mb, 31%.Mosaic duplicationPathogenic
Abnormal results of SNP-array CNVs identified by SNP-array in spontaneous abortions 2p25.3p24.1 (2,506,047-23,993,512)x4, 21.49Mb; 2p25.3 (12,770-2,500,096)x1, 2.49Mb; 17q21.2q25.3 (39,043,284-81,041,823)x2-3; 42Mb, 30%. 10q26.11q26.3 (121,370,630-135,426,836)x3, 14.06Mb; 12q24.33 (131,262,269-133,257,821)x3, 1.99Mb. 6q23.2q27(133,299,322-170,914,297)x1-2, 37.62Mb, 53%; 6q25.3 (159,279,821-160,261,361)x3, 0.98Mb; 6q25.3q27(160,264,660-164,813,573)x1, 4.55Mb; 6q27(164,836,468-166,972,621)x3, 2.14Mb; 6q27(166,973,398-170,914,297)x1, 3.94Mb. 7q33q36.3 (134,801,449-159,119,707)x1, 24.32Mb, 7q terminal deletion syndrome; 11q21q25(96,159,484-134,937,416)x3, 38.78Mb, 11q terminal duplication syndrome. 7q36.3 (155,329,202-157,529,779)x4, 2.20Mb; 7q36.3 (157,536,855-158,879,019)x1, 1.34Mb; 19p13.3p12(260,911-58,956,816)x1-2, chr19, 34%. 9p24.3p21.1 (208,454-28,535,563)x2-3, 28.32Mb, 58%; 18q21.31q23(54,265,846-78,013,728)x1, 23.74Mb; 18q21.2q21.31 (50,986,553-54,069,099)x3, 3.08Mb 4q31.23q35.2 (149,107,084-190,957,460)x3, 41.85Mb; 7q34q36.3 (143,084,599-159,119,707)x1, 16.04Mb 5p15.33p13.3 (113,576-29,104,386)x3, 28.99Mb; 13q22.3q34(77,782,493-115,011,636)x1, 37.23Mb. 2q37.1q37.3 (235,368,568-237,312,027)x4, 1.94Mb; 2q37.3 (238,781,791-242,782,258)x1, 4Mb. 18q22.2q23(68,019,984-78,013,728)x1, 9.99Mb; 3q27.3q29(186,570,452-195,835,968)x3, 9.27Mb.

Discussion

Elucidating the etiology of miscarriage is important for genetic consultation and management of the couple’s future pregnancies. Although the causes of miscarriage could be complicated, genetic abnormalities, mainly aneuploidies, was the most frequent cause of first-trimester pregnancy loss, which are detected in 45-70% of sporadic miscarriages and 25-57% of recurrent miscarriages [12]. Thus exploring the genetic cause of pregnancy loss is of great importance. HLPA is a method modified from MLPA to detect the copy number of 24 chromosomes by analyzing 170 genomic loci in one reaction [9, 10]. In addition to aneuploidy, SNP-array can also detect CNVs, LOH, polyploidy and mosaicism at the genome-wide level. However, balanced chromosomal translocation and low-level mosaicism (<10-15%) could not be identified by SNP-array. The turnaround time of HPLA is within 24h, which is shorter than that of SNP-array (2-3d) and conventional karyotyping (21-30d). The cost of HPLA is comparable to that of conventional karyotyping and much lower than that of SNP-array (1/10 of the cost of SNP-array). And in our institution, the failure rates of genetic analysis of POC by HPLA, SNP-array and conventional karyotyping are 2.1%, 1% and 35.6% respectively (unpublished data). Here we report an efficient and cost-effective HLPA/SNP-array strategy for genetic analysis of POC. Our analysis results of 326 POC specimens using this strategy indicated that the overall abnormality rate was 54.6%. Among these, 44.8% of samples were found to be abnormal by HLPA and SNP-array detected 9.8% additional chromosomal abnormalities, which is consistent with a previous report that CMA identified 13% (95% CI 8.0–21.0) additional chromosome aberrations over conventional karyotyping [13]. And the expense of SNP-array analysis is avoided for 40.8% of samples found to be aneuploid by HPLA. Hence the combination of HLPA and SNP-array in genetic analysis of POC is more cost-effective than testing by SNP-array alone. Previous studies revealed that submicroscopic CNVs could be one of genetic causes in pregnancy losses [14-19].In this study, 23 CNVs were identified in 326 POC samples using SNP-array, of which 11 CNVs were interpreted as pathogenic for these CNVs were cytogenetically visible alterations (>3-5 Mb) without well-established cytogenetic heteromorphisms, and 7 CNVs were classified as VOUS because whether these CNVs cause spontaneous abortions is still an open question (Table 1). Moreover, LOH and triploidy were detected in 9 cases by SNP-array, which were tested to be normal by HPLA. In addition, 4 POC samples found to have partial imbalance by HPLA were confirmed by SNP-array, indicating that HPLA can also detect microduplications and microdeletions [9, 10].

Conclusions

A combined HLPA and SNP-array analysis is an efficient and cost-effective strategy for genetic analysis of POC. We recommend the use of HLPA for initial genetic screening on POC, and subsequent SNP-array analysis on POC with normal HLPA results.
  19 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for molecular karyotyping in constitutional genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Joris Robert Vermeesch; Heike Fiegler; Nicole de Leeuw; Karoly Szuhai; Jacqueline Schoumans; Roberto Ciccone; Frank Speleman; Anita Rauch; Jill Clayton-Smith; Conny Van Ravenswaaij; Damien Sanlaville; Philippos C Patsalis; Helen Firth; Koen Devriendt; Orsetta Zuffardi
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2007-07-18       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Diagnostic utility of microarray testing in pregnancy loss.

Authors:  J A Rosenfeld; M E Tucker; L F Escobar; N J Neill; B S Torchia; L D McDaniel; R A Schultz; K Chong; D Chitayat
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 3.  First trimester pregnancy loss: Clinical implications of genetic testing.

Authors:  Diana Massalska; Janusz Grzegorz Zimowski; Julia Bijok; Magdalena Pawelec; Małgorzata Czubak-Barlik; Grzegorz Jakiel; Tomasz Roszkowski
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 1.730

4.  Characterization of chromosomal abnormalities in pregnancy losses reveals critical genes and loci for human early development.

Authors:  Yiyun Chen; Justin Bartanus; Desheng Liang; Hongmin Zhu; Amy M Breman; Janice L Smith; Hua Wang; Zhilin Ren; Ankita Patel; Pawel Stankiewicz; David S Cram; Sau Wai Cheung; Lingqian Wu; Fuli Yu
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 4.878

Review 5.  Recurrent miscarriage.

Authors:  Raj Rai; Lesley Regan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-08-12       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Spectrum of Cytogenomic Abnormalities Revealed by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization on Products of Conception Culture Failure and Normal Karyotype Samples.

Authors:  Qinghua Zhou; Shen-Yin Wu; Katherine Amato; Autumn DiAdamo; Peining Li
Journal:  J Genet Genomics       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 4.275

7.  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

Review 8.  Additional information from chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) over conventional karyotyping when diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  R K Dhillon; S C Hillman; R K Morris; D McMullan; D Williams; A Coomarasamy; M D Kilby
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Low-pass whole-genome sequencing in clinical cytogenetics: a validated approach.

Authors:  Zirui Dong; Jun Zhang; Ping Hu; Haixiao Chen; Jinjin Xu; Qi Tian; Lu Meng; Yanchou Ye; Jun Wang; Meiyan Zhang; Yun Li; Huilin Wang; Shanshan Yu; Fang Chen; Jiansheng Xie; Hui Jiang; Wei Wang; Kwong Wai Choy; Zhengfeng Xu
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization is more informative than conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the analysis of first-trimester spontaneous abortion.

Authors:  Jinsong Gao; Congcong Liu; Fengxia Yao; Na Hao; Jing Zhou; Qian Zhou; Liang Zhang; Xinyan Liu; Xuming Bian; Juntao Liu
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 2.009

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Cytogenomic "Theory of Everything": Chromohelkosis May Underlie Chromosomal Instability and Mosaicism in Disease and Aging.

Authors:  Ivan Y Iourov; Svetlana G Vorsanova; Yuri B Yurov; Maria A Zelenova; Oxana S Kurinnaia; Kirill S Vasin; Sergei I Kutsev
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 5.923

2.  Usefulness of combined NGS and QF-PCR analysis for product of conception karyotyping.

Authors:  Takema Kato; Shunsuke Miyai; Hideki Suzuki; Yuuri Murase; Shiyo Ota; Hiroko Yamauchi; Michiko Ammae; Tatsuya Nakano; Yoshiharu Nakaoka; Tomoko Inoue; Yoshiharu Morimoto; Aisaku Fukuda; Takafumi Utsunomiya; Haruki Nishizawa; Hiroki Kurahashi
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2022-02-27

3.  Copy Number Variation Analysis of Euploid Pregnancy Loss.

Authors:  Chongjuan Gu; Huan Gao; Kuanrong Li; Xinyu Dai; Zhao Yang; Ru Li; Canliang Wen; Yaojuan He
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 4.599

4.  A fetal fraction enrichment method reduces false negatives and increases test success rate of fetal chromosome aneuploidy detection in early pregnancy loss.

Authors:  Longwei Qiao; Bin Zhang; Xiaojuan Wu; Chunhua Zhang; Ying Xue; Hui Tang; Haoyu Tang; Jingye Shi; Yuting Liang; Bin Yu; Ting Wang
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 8.440

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.