Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Jan;29(1):29-39.
doi: 10.1002/pd.2127.

Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases

Affiliations

Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases

Ignatia B Van den Veyver et al. Prenat Diagn. 2009 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis, including assessment of variants of uncertain significance, and the ability to detect abnormalities not detected by karyotype, and vice versa.

Methods: Women undergoing amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) for karyotype were offered aCGH analysis using a targeted microarray. Parental samples were obtained concurrently to exclude maternal cell contamination and determine if copy number variants (CNVs) were de novo, or inherited prior to issuing a report.

Results: We analyzed 300 samples, most were amniotic fluid (82%) and CVS (17%). The most common indications were advanced maternal age (N=123) and abnormal ultrasound findings (N=84). We detected 58 CNVs (19.3%). Of these, 40 (13.3%) were interpreted as likely benign, 15 (5.0%) were of defined pathological significance, while 3 (1.0%) were of uncertain clinical significance. For seven (approximately 2.3% or 1/43), aCGH contributed important new information. For two of these (1% or approximately 1/150), the abnormality would not have been detected without aCGH analysis.

Conclusion: Although aCGH-detected benign inherited variants in 13.3% of cases, these did not present major counseling difficulties, and the procedure is an improved diagnostic tool for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The Medical Genetics Laboratories of the Department of Molecular and Human Genetics at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), where the authors are employed as trainees, staff or faculty members, offers extensive genetic laboratory testing and derives revenue from this activity. BCM currently uses oligonucleotide arrays manufactured by Agilent Technologies.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Copy number losses of uncertain clinical significance. (A) BAC aCGH result on a fetal sample, showing de novo copy number loss of one BAC clone in Xq27.3 (Table 3 case no. 7). Normalized data from both dye-reversal hybridizations are shown on the left in red and blue and combined data are shown on the right in green. The red circles indicate the clone affected by copy number loss. (B) Top panel: Oligo aCGH result showing two deleted clones in 15q26 (Table 3 case no. 11) (indicated by the red circle); middle panel: FISH results on metaphase spreads with the deleted clones; bottom panel: schematic of the genomic region from the Ensembl genome browser showing gene content of the deletion (red square)

References

    1. ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2007a;109:217–227. - PubMed
    1. ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007b;110:1459–1467. - PubMed
    1. Ballif BC, Hornor SA, Sulpizio SG, et al. Development of a high-density pericentromeric region BAC clone set for the detection and characterization of small supernumerary marker chromosomes by array CGH. Genet Med. 2007;9:150–162. - PubMed
    1. Ballif BC, Rorem EA, 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. - PubMed
    1. Barber JC. Terminal 3p deletions: phenotypic variability, chromosomal non-penetrance, or gene modification? Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A:1899–1901. - PubMed

Publication types