» Articles » PMID: 24146428

Perspective on the Technical Challenges Involved in the Implementation of Array-CGH in Prenatal Diagnostic Testing

Overview
Journal Mol Biotechnol
Publisher Springer
Date 2013 Oct 23
PMID 24146428
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Our aim was to construct a streamlined technical workflow to facilitate a prospective, multi-centre evaluation of array comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) in the prenatal diagnostic context. A collection of commercially available DNA extraction and quantification techniques were evaluated and compared using minimal quantities of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi and cultured cells. When prenatal DNA of suitable quality and quantity was obtained, array-CGH was performed using Oxford Gene Technology's (OGT, Oxford, UK) CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. With starting quantities of 2-4 ml amniotic fluid, 2-5 mg chorionic villi or under 150,000 cultured cells the following optimised technical workflow was identified: DNA extraction using the iGENatal™ kit (igenbiotech, Madrid, Spain) and quantification by the Qubit® 2.0 Fluorometer with the Qubit® dsDNA BR assay kit (Invitrogen™, Eugene, OR, USA). In addition, it was elucidated that array-CGH can be successfully performed with as little as 125 ng DNA in the experiment using the OGT CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. Amidst an on-going debate on whether array-CGH should be applied in the prenatal diagnostic setting, by following the technical recommendations described here genetics laboratories can now gain exposure to prenatal array-CGH testing without compromising the conventional karyotype result.

Citing Articles

DNA concentrations in amniotic fluid according to gestational age and fetal sex: data from 2573 samples.

Gofin Y, Svirsky R, Lavi Ben Atav D, Liberman M, Tenne T, Perlman S Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(4):1981-1987.

PMID: 39210070 PMC: 11393111. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07698-6.


Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization.

Freitas M, Pinto J, Ramalho C, Doria S Porto Biomed J. 2019; 3(2):e13.

PMID: 31595243 PMC: 6726309. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbj.0000000000000013.


Genome-Wide Transcriptional Excavation of Dipsacus asperoides Unmasked both Cryptic Asperosaponin Biosynthetic Genes and SSR Markers.

Wang J, Liang Y, Hai M, Chen J, Gao Z, Hu Q Front Plant Sci. 2016; 7:339.

PMID: 27066018 PMC: 4809893. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00339.

References
1.
Gruchy N, Decamp M, Richard N, Jeanne-Pasquier C, Benoist G, Mittre H . Array CGH analysis in high-risk pregnancies: comparing DNA from cultured cells and cell-free fetal DNA. Prenat Diagn. 2011; 32(4):383-8. DOI: 10.1002/pd.2861. View

2.
Park S, Jung E, Ryu R, Kang H, Ko J, Kim H . Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases. Mol Cytogenet. 2011; 4:12. PMC: 3114015. DOI: 10.1186/1755-8166-4-12. View

3.
Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, Spizzichino L, Bono S, Sessa M . Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn. 2011; 31(13):1270-82. DOI: 10.1002/pd.2884. View

4.
Armengol L, Nevado J, Serra-Juhe C, Plaja A, Mediano C, Garcia-Santiago F . Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in invasive prenatal diagnosis. Hum Genet. 2011; 131(3):513-23. PMC: 3277707. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-011-1095-5. View

5.
Shaffer L, Dabell M, Fisher A, Coppinger J, Bandholz A, Ellison J . Experience with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis in over 5000 pregnancies. Prenat Diagn. 2012; 32(10):976-85. PMC: 3491694. DOI: 10.1002/pd.3945. View