Skip to main content

Prenatal Cytogenetic and Cytogenomic Diagnosis

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
  • 2753 Accesses

Abstract

Assessing the fetal karyotype is possible through procedures, such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, which allow the isolation of cell lines that are fetal in origin. Although aneuploidies are by far the most common chromosome abnormalities that lead to birth defects, a number of structural chromosome rearrangements can be identified by standard karyotype analysis. They include translocations, inversions, and supernumerary marker chromosomes. When balanced and inherited from a normal parent, these aberrations are generally not associated with a clinical phenotype; however, when de novo in origin, they have certain empirical risks. Molecular cytogenetic technologies, such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), can help to elucidate and further define fetal chromosome abnormalities. Cytogenomic techniques, such as array comparative genomic hybridization, can examine the genome at much higher resolution than karyotyping and FISH and are currently used as additional testing when ultrasound abnormalities are present with a normal karyotype as well as follow-up to abnormal karyotypes that involve de novo aberrations and material of unknown origin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Further Reading

  • Brady PD, Devriendt K, Deprest J, Vermeesch JR. Array based approaches in prenatal diagnosis. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;838:151–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crolla JA. FISH and molecular studies of autosomal supernumerary marker chromosomes excluding those derived from chromosome 15: II. Review of the literature. Am J Med Genet. 1998;75:367–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans MI, Wapner RJ. Invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures 2005. Semin Perinatol. 2005;29:215–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR, Shaffer LG. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, Kilby MD. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:6–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan KO, Etchegaray A, Zhou Y, et al. Prospective validation of first-trimester combined screening for trisomy 21. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:14–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kotzot D. Prenatal testing for uniparental disomy: indications and clinical relevance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:100–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ledbetter DH, Engel E. Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis. Hum Mol Genet. 1995;4:1757–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides KH. First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities (Review). Semin Perinatol. 2005;29:190–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Randolph LM. Prenatal Cytogenetics. In: Gersen SL, Keagle MB, editors. The principles of clinical cytogenetics. Totowa: Humana Press; 2005. p. 267–321.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer LG. Risk estimates for uniparental disomy following prenatal detection of a nonhomologous Robertsonian translocation. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26:303–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer LG, Coppinger J, Alliman S. Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens. Prenatal Diagn. 2008;28:789–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepperberg J, Pettenati MJ, Rao PN. Prenatal diagnosis using interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), 2-year multi-center retrospective study and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn. 2001;21:293–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Veyver IB, Patel A, Shaw CA, et al. Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenatal Diagn. 2009;29:29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warburton D. De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. Am J Hum Genet. 1991;49(5):995–1013.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wenstrom KD. Evaluation of Down syndrome screening strategies. Semin Perinatol. 2005;29(4):219–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Cohen, N., Edelmann, L. (2013). Prenatal Cytogenetic and Cytogenomic Diagnosis. In: Cheng, L., Zhang, D., Eble, J. (eds) Molecular Genetic Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4800-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4800-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4799-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4800-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics