Diagnosis of miscarriages by molecular karyotyping: Benefits and pitfalls

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 646-654

  Robberecht, Caroline ^a   Schuddinck, Vicky ^a   Fryns, Jean Pierre ^a   Vermeesch, Joris Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Center for Human Genetics   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Array CGH; Array comparative genomic hybridization; Chromosomal imbalance; Miscarriage

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; CONTAMINATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL CULTURE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KARYOTYPING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOSAICISM; NUMERICAL CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; RECIPROCAL CHROMOSOME TRANSLOCATION; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; COMPARATIVE GENOMIC HYBRIDIZATION; FEMALE; FETUS; HUMANS; KARYOTYPING; MALE; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE ARRAY SEQUENCE ANALYSIS;

EID: 70349662305     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181abc92a     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Hassold T, Chen N, Funkhouser J, et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet 1980;44:151-178. (Pubitemid 11215107)
2. Hassold T. A cytogenetic study of repeated spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet 1980;32:723-730. (Pubitemid 10061693)
3. Goddijn M, Leschot N. Genetic aspects of miscarriage. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2000;14:855-865.
4. Bell K, Van Deerlin P, Haddad B, Feinberg R. Cytogenetic diagnosis of "normal 46,XX" karyotypes in spontaneous abortions frequently may be misleading. Fertil Steril 1999;71:334-341.
5. Lomax B, Tang S, Separovic E, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization in combination with flow cytometry improves results of cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:1516-1521.
6. Bruno DL, Burgess T, Ren H, et al. High-throughput analysis of chromosome abnormality in spontaneous miscarriage using an MLPA subtelomere assay with an ancillary FISH test for polyploidy. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:2786-2793.
7. Diego-Alvarez D, Garcia-Hoyos M, Trujillo MJ, et al. Application of quantitative fluorescent PCR with short tandem repeat markers to the study of aneuploidies in spontaneous miscarriages. Hum Reprod 2005; 20:1235-1243.
8. Jobanputra V, Sobrino A, Kinney A, Kline J, Warburton D. Multiplex interphase FISH as a screen for common aneuploidies in spontaneous abortions. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1166-1170.
9. Mann K, Fox SP, Abbs SJ, et al. Development and implementation of a new rapid aneuploidy diagnostic service within the UK National Health Service and implications for the future of prenatal diagnosis. Lancet 2001;358:1057-1061.
10. Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi O, Sudar D, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992; 258:818-821.
11. Kirchhoff M, Rose H, Lundsteen C. High resolution comparative genomic hybridisation in clinical cytogenetics. J Med Genet 2001;38:740-744.
12. Daniely M, Barkai G, Goldman B, Aviram-Goldring A. Detection of numerical chromosome aberrations by comparative genomic hybridization. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:100-104. (Pubitemid 29112563)
13. Barrett I, Lomax B, Loukianova T, Tang S, Lestou V, Kalousek D. Comparative genomic hybridization: a new tool for reproductive pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001;125:81-84.
14. Hu Y, Chen X, Chen L, Xu Z, Wang X, Cui H. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of spontaneous abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 92:52-57.
15. Azmanov D, Milachich T, Zaharieva B, et al. Profile of chromosomal aberrations in different gestational age spontaneous abortions detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;131:127-131.
16. Fritz B, Hallermann C, Olert J, et al. Cytogenetic analyses of culture failures by comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH)-re-evaluation of chromosome aberration rates in early spontaneous abortions. Eur J Hum Genet 2001;9: 539-547.
17. Tabet A, Aboura A, Dauge M, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of trophoblasts by comparative genomic hybridization in embryo-fetal development anomalies. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:613-618.
18. Pinkel D, Segraves R, Sudar D, et al. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet 1998;20:207-211.
19. Snijders A, Nowak N, Segraves R, et al. Assembly of microarrays for genomewide measurement of DNA copy number. Nat Genet 2001;29:263-264.
20. Schaeffer A, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter D, Lese Martin C. Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet 2004;74:1168-1174.
21. Benkhalifa M, Kasakyan S, Clement P, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization profiling of first-trimester spontaneous abortions that fail to grow in vitro. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:894-900.
22. Shimokawa O, Harada N, Miyake N, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis in first-trimester spontaneous abortions with 'normal' karyotypes. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:1931-1935.
23. Dutrillaux B. New system of chromosome banding: the T bands. Chromosoma 1973;41:395-402.
24. Ballif B, Kashork C, Saleki R, et al. Detecting sex chromosome anomalies and common triploidies in products of conception by array-based comparative genomic hybridisation. Prenat Diagn 2006;26:333-339.
25. Vermeesch J, Melotte C, Froyen G, et al. Molecular karyotyping: array CGH quality criteria for constitutional genetic diagnosis. J Histochem Cytochem 2005;53:413-422.
26. Vermeesch J, Mertens G, David G, Marynen P. Assignment of the human glypican gene (GPC1) to 2q35-q37 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 1995;25:327-329.
27. Menten B, Maas N, Thienpont B, et al. Emerging patterns of cryptic chromosomal imbalance in patients with idiopathic mental retardation and multiple congenital anomalies: a new series of 140 patients and review of published reports. J Med Genet 2006;43:625-633.
28. Ballif B, Rorem E, Sundin K, et al. Detection of low-level mosaicism by array CGH in routine diagnostic specimens. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140: 2757-2767.
29. Cheung S, Shaw C, Scott D, et al. Microarray-based CGH detects chromosomal mosaicism not revealed by conventional cytogenetics. Am J Med Genet A 2007;143:1679-1686.