Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and prenatal diagnosis

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 315-320

  Willis, Alecia S ^a   Van den Veyver, Ignatia ^a   Eng, Christine M ^a  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Anueploidy; Deletion duplication analysis; DNA; MLPA; Molecular technique; Single gene disorders

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; CAPILLARY ELECTROPHORESIS; GENE; GENETIC DISORDER; HUMAN; MATERNAL CELL CONTAMINATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MULTIPLEX LIGATION DEPENDENT PROBE AMPLIFICATION; OLIGONUCLEOTIDE PROBE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; TELOMERE;

ADULT; CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CHROMOSOME DISORDERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION TECHNIQUES; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 84859140284     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.3860     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Schouten JP, McElgunn CJ, Waaijer R, et al. Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:e57.
2. Eldering E, Speck CA, Aberson HL, et al. Expression profiling via novel multiplex assay allows rapid assessment of gene regulation in defined signalling pathways. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:e153.
3. Nygren AOH, Ameziane N, Duarte HMB, et al. Methylation-specific MLPA (MS-MLPA): simultaneous detection of CpG methylation and copy number changes of up to 40 sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33:e128.
4. MRC-Holland. [WWW document]. Interpretation of MLPA results. [accessed on 21 October 2011].
5. Slater HR, Bruno DL, Ren H, et al. Rapid, high throughput prenatal detection of aneuploidy using a novel quantitative method (MLPA). J Med Genet 2003;40:907-12.
6. Kooper AJ, Faas BH, Kater-Baats E, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) as a stand-alone test for rapid aneuploidy detection in amniotic fluid cells. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:1004-10.
7. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Wildschut HI, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the M.A.K.E. study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008;8:18.
8. Gerdes T, Kirchhoff M, Lind AM, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) in prenatal diagnosis-experience of a large series of rapid testing for aneuploidy of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:1119-25.
9. Kooper AJ, Faas BH, Feuth T, et al. Detection of chromosome aneuploidies in chorionic villus samples by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. J Mol Diagn 2009;11:17-24.
10. Van Opstal D, Boter M, de Jong D, et al. Rapid aneuploidy detection with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification: a prospective study of 4000 amniotic fluid samples. Eur J Hum Genet 2009;17:112-21.
11. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Oepkes D, et al. Comparison of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:297-303.
12. Nagan N, Faulkner NE, Curtis C, et al. Laboratory Guidelines for Detection, Interpretation, and Reporting of Maternal Cell Contamination in Prenatal Analyses. J Mol Diagn 2011;13:7-11.
13. Wimmer K, Yao S, Claes K, et al. Spectrum of Single- and Multiexon NF1 Copy NumberChanges in a Cohort of 1, 100 Unselected NF1 Patients. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2006;45:265-76.
14. van Veghel-Plandsoen MM, Wouters CH, Kromosoeto JN, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification is not suitable for detection of low-grade mosaicism. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1009-12.
15. Bartnik M, Derwinska K, Goss M, et al. Early-onset seizures due to a mosaic exonic deletions of CDKL5 in a male and two females. Genet Med 2011;13:447-52.
16. Kjaergaard S, Sundberg K, Jorgensen FS, et al. Diagnostic yield by supplementing prenatal metaphase karyotyping with MLPA for microdeletion syndromes and subtelomere imbalances. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:995-9.
17. Mademont-Soler I, Morales C, Bruguera J, et al. Subtelomeric MLPA: is it really useful in prenatal diagnosis? Prenat Diagn 2010;30:1165-9.
18. Konialis C, Hagnefelt B, Sevastidou S, et al. Uncovering recurrent microdeletion syndromes and subtelomeric deletions/duplications through non-selective application of a MLPA-based extended prenatal panel in routine prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2011;31:571-7.
19. Van Opstal D, Boter M, Noomen P, et al. Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for rapid distinction between unique sequence positive and negative marker chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis. Mol Cytogenet 2011;4:2.
20. Concolino E, Mello E, Toscano V, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) assay for the detection of CYP21A2 gene deletions/duplications in congenital adrenal hyperplasia: first technical report. Clin Chim Acta 2009;402:164-70.
21. Padma Priya T, Dalai AB. Tuberous Sclerosis: Diagnosis and Prenatal Diagnosis by MLPA. Indian J Pediatr 2011 May 4. doi: 10.1007/s12098-011-0408-y
22. Wu Y, Yin G, Fu K, et al. Gene diagnosis for nine Chinese patients with DMD/BMD by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and prenatal diagnosis for one of them. J Clin Lab Anal 2009;23:380-6.
23. Wang G, Li-Ling J, Lin C. Characteristics of dystrophin gene mutations among Chinese patients as revealed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2009;13:23-30.
24. Zeng J, Lan F, Deng X, et al. Evaluation of an in-house protocol for prenatal molecular diagnosis of SMA in Chinese. Clin Chim Acta 2008;398(1-2):78-81.
25. Faas BH, Nillesen W, Vermeer S, et al. Detection of cryptic subtelomeric imbalances in fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities. Eur J Med Genet 2008;51:511-9.
26. Grati FR, Chinetti S, Malgara R, et al. Prenatal detection by subtelomeric FISH and MLPA of unbalanced meiotic recombinants resulting from parental pericentric inversions. Mol Cell Probes 2008;22:316-9.
27. Chitty LS, Kistler J, Akolekar R, et al. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA): a reliable alternative for fetal chromosome analysis? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011 Dec 6. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2011.636093
28. de Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Timmermans DRM, et al. Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical Reflection. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1020-5.
29. Ogilvie CM, Yaron Y, Beaudet AL. Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: For prenatal diagnosis, should we offer less or more than metaphase karyotyping? Prenat Diagn 2009;29:11-4.
30. Mann K, Donaghue C, Fox S, et al. Strategies for the rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosome aneuploidy. Eur J Hum Genet 2004;12: 907-15.
31. UK National Screening Committee. {WWW document] NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme -Screening for Down's syndrome: UK NSC Policy recommendations 2007-2010: Model of Best Practice, 2008. [accessed on 16 January 2012].
32. Gerdes T, Kirchoff M, Lind A, et al. Computer-assisted prenatal aneuploidy screening for chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y based on multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13:171-5.
33. Hochstenbach R, Mejjer, van de Burg J, et al. Rapid detection of chromosomal aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Prenat Diagn 2005;25:1032-9.
34. Schaaf CP, Wiszniewska J, Beaudet AL. Copy number and SNP arrays in clinical diagnostics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2011;12:25-51.