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.
Keywords
- Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization
- Prenatal Test
- Uniparental Disomy
- Chorionic Villus Sampling
- Amniotic Fluid Cell
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsFurther Reading
Brady PD, Devriendt K, Deprest J, Vermeesch JR. Array based approaches in prenatal diagnosis. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;838:151–71.
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.
Evans MI, Wapner RJ. Invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures 2005. Semin Perinatol. 2005;29:215–18.
Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR, Shaffer LG. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic counseling. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
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.
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.
Kotzot D. Prenatal testing for uniparental disomy: indications and clinical relevance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:100–5.
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.
Nicolaides KH. First-trimester screening for chromosomal abnormalities (Review). Semin Perinatol. 2005;29:190–4.
Randolph LM. Prenatal Cytogenetics. In: Gersen SL, Keagle MB, editors. The principles of clinical cytogenetics. Totowa: Humana Press; 2005. p. 267–321.
Shaffer LG. Risk estimates for uniparental disomy following prenatal detection of a nonhomologous Robertsonian translocation. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26:303–7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wenstrom KD. Evaluation of Down syndrome screening strategies. Semin Perinatol. 2005;29(4):219–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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