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
Review
. 2014 Jun 20;3(2):663-78.
doi: 10.3390/jcm3020663.

Microarray Technology for the Diagnosis of Fetal Chromosomal Aberrations: Which Platform Should We Use?

Evangelia Karampetsou  1 , Deborah Morrogh  2 , Lyn Chitty  3   4   5
Affiliations
Review

Microarray Technology for the Diagnosis of Fetal Chromosomal Aberrations: Which Platform Should We Use?

Evangelia Karampetsou et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

The advantage of microarray (array) over conventional karyotype for the diagnosis of fetal pathogenic chromosomal anomalies has prompted the use of microarrays in prenatal diagnostics. In this review we compare the performance of different array platforms (BAC, oligonucleotide CGH, SNP) and designs (targeted, whole genome, whole genome, and targeted, custom) and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in relation to prenatal testing. We also discuss the factors to consider when implementing a microarray testing service for the diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aberrations.

Keywords: BAC; SNP; implementation; prenatal microarray.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (CGH) arrays.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) arrays.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Miller D.T., Adam M.P., Aradhya S., Biesecker L.G., Brothman A.R., Carter N.P., Church D.M., Crolla J.A., Eichler E.E., Epstein C.J., et al. Consensus statement: Chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2010;86:749–764. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.04.006. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shaffer L.G., Dabell M.P., Fisher A.J., Coppinger J., Bandholz A.M., Ellison J.W., Ravnan J.B., Torchia B.S., Ballif B.C., Rosenfeld J.A. Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat. Diagn. 2012;32:976–985. doi: 10.1002/pd.3945. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wapner R.J., Martin C.L., Levy B., Ballif B.C., Eng C.M., Zachary J.M., Savage M., Platt L.D., Saltzman D., Grobman W.A., et al. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;367:2175–2184. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1203382. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fiorentino F., Napoletano S., Caiazzo F., Sessa M., Bono S., Spizzichino L., Gordon A., Nuccitelli A., Rizzo G., Baldi M. Chromosomal microarray analysis as a first-line test in pregnancies with a priori low risk for the detection of submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2013;21:725–730. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.253. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Callaway J.L., Shaffer L.G., Chitty L.S., Rosenfeld J.A., Crolla J.A. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: A review of the literature. Prenat. Diagn. 2013;33:1119–1123. doi: 10.1002/pd.4209. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources