Na Ma1, Hui Xi1, Jing Chen1, Ying Peng1, Zhengjun Jia1, Shuting Yang1, Jiancheng Hu1, Jialun Pang1, Yanan Zhang1, Rong Hu1, Hua Wang2,3, Jing Liu4. 1. Department of Medical Genetics, Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. 2. Department of Medical Genetics, Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. wanghua213@aliyun.com. 3. National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Birth Defects Research, Prevention and Treatment, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. wanghua213@aliyun.com. 4. Department of Medical Genetics, Hunan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. kinkilj@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging studies suggest that low-coverage massively parallel copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) more sensitive than chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for detecting low-level mosaicism. However, a retrospective back-to-back comparison evaluating accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of CNV-seq compared with CMA is warranted. METHODS: A total of 72 mosaicism cases identified by karyotyping or CMA were recruited to the study. There were 67 mosaic samples co-analysed by CMA and CNV-seq, comprising 40 with sex chromosome aneuploidy, 22 with autosomal aneuploidy and 5 with large cryptic genomic rearrangements. RESULTS: Of the 67 positive mosaic cases, the levels of mosaicism defined by CNV-seq ranged from 6 to 92% compared to the ratio from 3 to 90% by karyotyping and 20% to 72% by CMA. CNV-seq not only identified all 43 chromosomal aneuploidies or large cryptic genomic rearrangements detected by CMA, but also provided a 34.88% (15/43) increased yield compared with CMA. The improved yield of mosaicism detection by CNV-seq was largely due to the ability to detect low level mosaicism below 20%. CONCLUSION: In the context of prenatal diagnosis, CNV-seq identified additional and clinically significant mosaicism with enhanced resolution and increased sensitivity. This study provides strong evidence for applying CNV-seq as an alternative to CMA for detection of aneuploidy and mosaic variants.
BACKGROUND: Emerging studies suggest that low-coverage massively parallel copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) more sensitive than chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for detecting low-level mosaicism. However, a retrospective back-to-back comparison evaluating accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of CNV-seq compared with CMA is warranted. METHODS: A total of 72 mosaicism cases identified by karyotyping or CMA were recruited to the study. There were 67 mosaic samples co-analysed by CMA and CNV-seq, comprising 40 with sex chromosome aneuploidy, 22 with autosomal aneuploidy and 5 with large cryptic genomic rearrangements. RESULTS: Of the 67 positive mosaic cases, the levels of mosaicism defined by CNV-seq ranged from 6 to 92% compared to the ratio from 3 to 90% by karyotyping and 20% to 72% by CMA. CNV-seq not only identified all 43 chromosomal aneuploidies or large cryptic genomic rearrangements detected by CMA, but also provided a 34.88% (15/43) increased yield compared with CMA. The improved yield of mosaicism detection by CNV-seq was largely due to the ability to detect low level mosaicism below 20%. CONCLUSION: In the context of prenatal diagnosis, CNV-seq identified additional and clinically significant mosaicism with enhanced resolution and increased sensitivity. This study provides strong evidence for applying CNV-seq as an alternative to CMA for detection of aneuploidy and mosaic variants.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA); Copy number variation sequencing (CNV‐seq); Copy number variations (CNVs); Mosaicism; Prenatal diagnosis
Authors: G P Nowinski; D L Van Dyke; B C Tilley; G Jacobsen; V R Babu; M J Worsham; G N Wilson; L Weiss Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: S Liu; L Song; D S Cram; L Xiong; K Wang; R Wu; J Liu; K Deng; B Jia; M Zhong; F Yang Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Laura K Conlin; Brian D Thiel; Carsten G Bonnemann; Livija Medne; Linda M Ernst; Elaine H Zackai; Matthew A Deardorff; Ian D Krantz; Hakon Hakonarson; Nancy B Spinner Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 6.150