Cargando…

The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis

OBJECTIVE: To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was perfor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hao, MengZhe, Li, LeiLei, Zhang, Han, Li, LinLin, Liu, Ruizhi, Yu, Yang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23514
_version_ 1783626405345492992
author Hao, MengZhe
Li, LeiLei
Zhang, Han
Li, LinLin
Liu, Ruizhi
Yu, Yang
author_facet Hao, MengZhe
Li, LeiLei
Zhang, Han
Li, LinLin
Liu, Ruizhi
Yu, Yang
author_sort Hao, MengZhe
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G‐banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray. RESULT: Thirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases. CONCLUSION: Both karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7755766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77557662020-12-23 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 Clin Lab Anal Case Reports OBJECTIVE: To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G‐banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray. RESULT: Thirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases. CONCLUSION: Both karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7755766/ /pubmed/32864771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23514 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Case Reports
Hao, MengZhe
Li, LeiLei
Zhang, Han
Li, LinLin
Liu, Ruizhi
Yu, Yang
The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title_full The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title_fullStr The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title_full_unstemmed The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title_short The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
title_sort difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis
topic Case Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32864771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23514
work_keys_str_mv AT haomengzhe thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT lileilei thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT zhanghan thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT lilinlin thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT liuruizhi thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT yuyang thedifferencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT haomengzhe differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT lileilei differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT zhanghan differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT lilinlin differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT liuruizhi differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis
AT yuyang differencebetweenkaryotypeanalysisandchromosomemicroarrayformosaicismofaneuploidchromosomesinprenataldiagnosis