Assessment of Combined Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis: A Cohort Study of 3710 Pregnancies

被引:6
作者
Wang, Jin [1 ]
Wang, Danni [1 ]
Yin, Yan [1 ]
Deng, Yi [1 ]
Ye, Mengling [1 ]
Wei, Ping [1 ]
Zhang, Zhuo [1 ]
Chen, Chun [1 ]
Qin, Shengfang [1 ]
Wang, Xueyan [1 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Prov Matern & Child Hlth Care Hosp, Dept Med Genet & Prenatal Diag, Chengdu 610003, Peoples R China
关键词
REARRANGEMENTS; MOSAICISM; MARKER;
D O I
10.1155/2022/6791439
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Objective. The current study aimed to compare the characteristics of chromosome abnormalities detected by conventional G-banding karyotyping, chromosome microarray analysis (CMA), or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/CNVplex analysis and further explore the application value of combined karyotype analysis and CMA in prenatal diagnosis with a larger sample size. Methods. From March 2019 to March 2021, 3710 amniocentesis samples were retrospectively collected from women who accepted prenatal diagnosis at 16 to 22 + 6 weeks of pregnancy. The pregnant women underwent karyotype analysis and CMA. In the case of fetal chromosomal mosaicism, FISH or CNVplex analysis was utilized for validation. Results. In total, 3710 G-banding karyotype results and CMA results from invasive prenatal diagnosis were collected. Of these, 201 (5.41%) fetuses with an abnormal karyotype were observed. The CMA analysis showed that the abnormality rate was 9.14% (340/3710). The detection rate of CMA combined with karyotype analysis was 0.35% higher than that of CMA alone and 4.08% higher than that of karyotyping alone. Additionally, 12 cases had abnormal karyotype analysis, despite normal CMA results. To further detect the chromosome mosaicism, we used FISH analysis to correct the karyotype results of case 1. Correspondingly, a total of 157 cases showed abnormal CMA results but normal karyotype analysis. We also found chromosomal mosaicism in 4 cases using CMA. Moreover, CNVplex and CMA demonstrated that representative case 15 was mosaicism for trisomy 2. Conclusions. Conventional G-banding karyotyping and CMA have their own advantages and limitations. A combination of karyotype analysis and CMA can increase the detection rate of chromosome abnormalities and make up for the limitation of signal detection.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics, 2013, Obstet Gynecol, V122, P1374, DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000438962.16108.d1
  • [2] Bates SE, 2011, METHODS MOL BIOL, V767, P177, DOI 10.1007/978-1-61779-201-4_13
  • [3] A copy number variation genotyping method for aneuploidy detection in spontaneous abortion specimens
    Chen, Songchang
    Liu, Deyuan
    Zhang, Junyu
    Li, Shuyuan
    Zhang, Lanlan
    Fan, Jianxia
    Luo, Yuqin
    Qian, Yeqing
    Huang, Hefeng
    Liu, Chao
    Zhu, Huanhuan
    Jiang, Zhengwen
    Xu, Chenming
    [J]. PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS, 2017, 37 (02) : 176 - 183
  • [4] Additional information from chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) over conventional karyotyping when diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Dhillon, R. K.
    Hillman, S. C.
    Morris, R. K.
    McMullan, D.
    Williams, D.
    Coomarasamy, A.
    Kilby, M. D.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 121 (01) : 11 - 21
  • [5] Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities
    Fiorentino, Francesco
    Napoletano, Stefania
    Caiazzo, Fiorina
    Sessa, Mariateresa
    Bono, Sara
    Spizzichino, Letizia
    Gordon, Anthony
    Nuccitelli, Andrea
    Rizzo, Giuseppe
    Baldi, Marina
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2013, 21 (07) : 725 - 730
  • [6] The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
    Hao, MengZhe
    Li, LeiLei
    Zhang, Han
    Li, LinLin
    Liu, Ruizhi
    Yu, Yang
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS, 2020, 34 (12)
  • [7] Analysis of marker or complex chromosomal rearrangements present in pre- and post-natal karyotypes utilizing a combination of G-banding, spectral karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization
    Heng, HHQ
    Ye, CJ
    Yang, F
    Ebrahim, S
    Liu, G
    Bremer, SW
    Thomas, CM
    Ye, J
    Chen, TJ
    Tuck-Muller, C
    Yu, JW
    Krawetz, SA
    Johnson, A
    [J]. CLINICAL GENETICS, 2003, 63 (05) : 358 - 367
  • [8] Copy Number Variants, Aneuploidies, and Human Disease
    Martin, Christa Lese
    Kirkpatrick, Brianne E.
    Ledbetter, David H.
    [J]. CLINICS IN PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 42 (02) : 227 - +
  • [9] Multicolor-FISH Characterization of a Prenatal Mosaicism for a Chromosomal Rearrangement Undetected by Molecular Cytogenetics
    Mary, Laura
    Loget, Philippe
    Odent, Sylvie
    Aussel, Dominique
    Le Bouar, Gwenaelle
    Launay, Erika
    Henry, Catherine
    Belaud-Rotureau, Marc-Antoine
    Jaillard, Sylvie
    [J]. CYTOGENETIC AND GENOME RESEARCH, 2021, 161 (3-4) : 143 - 152
  • [10] CHROMOSOME MOSAICISM IN HUMAN EMBRYOS
    MUNNE, S
    WEIER, HUG
    GRIFO, J
    COHEN, J
    [J]. BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION, 1994, 51 (03) : 373 - 379