Improved assay performance of single nucleotide polymorphism array over conventional karyotyping in analyzing products of conception. Issue 7 (July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lin, Shao‐Bin; Xie, Ying‐Jun; Chen, Zheng; Zhou, Yi; Wu, Jian‐Zhu; Zhang, Zhi‐Qiang; Shi, Shan‐Shan; Chen, Bao‐Jiang; Fang, Qun
• Is Part Of: Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. Volume 78:Issue 7(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-07
• Subjects: copy number variation -- karyotyping -- products of conception -- single nucleotide polymorphism array -- uniparental disomy; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.03.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1726-4901

Abstract

Abstract : Background : Conventional karyotyping has been a routine method to identify chromosome abnormalities in products of conception. However, this process is being transformed by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, which has advantages over karyotyping, including higher resolution and dispensing with cell culture. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantage of high‐resolution SNP array in identifying genetic aberrations in products of conception. Methods : We consecutively collected 155 products of conception specimens, including 139 from first‐trimester miscarriage and 16 from second‐trimester miscarriage. SNP array was performed on these samples in parallel with G‐banded karyotyping. Results : The test success rate was 98.1% (152/155) using SNP array, which was higher than that using karyotyping (133/155, 85.8%). It yielded a 63.8% (97/152) abnormality rate, and the frequency of various chromosome abnormalities was in agreement with other previous studies. The results between array and karyotyping demonstrated a 94.0% (125/133) concordance. SNP array obtained additional aberrations in 3.8% (5/133) of those cases unidentified by karyotyping, which included three cases with whole‐genome uniparental disomy, one with pathogenic copy number variation, and one with del(4)(q35.1q35.2) and dup(12)(q24.31q24.33). However, chromosome translocations presented in two cases and tetraploidy presented in one case were detected by karyotyping instead of array. Additionally, two out of three cases with mosaic trisomy were revealed by array but recognized as pure trisomy by karyotyping. Conclusion : This study demonstrated that SNP array had certain advantages over G‐banded karyotyping, including a higher success rate, additional detection of copy number variations and uniparental disomy, and improved sensitivity to mosaicism. Therefore, it would be an alternative method to karyotyping in clinical genetic practice.