HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) web only table All Versions of this Article: jmg.2007.055319v1 45/5/268    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Aston, E Articles by Brothman, A R PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Aston, E Articles by Brothman, A R

Comparison of targeted and whole genome analysis of postnatal specimens using a commercially available array based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) microarray platform

¹ University of Utah CGH Microarray Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
² University of Utah Department of Human Genetics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
³ University of Utah Department of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
⁴ IVF Genetics LLC, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Correspondence to:
Dr A R Brothman, University of Utah CGH Microarray Laboratory, SOM 1C210, 30N 1900 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA; art.brothman{at}genetics.utah.edu]

Purpose: The University of Utah Comparative Genomic Hybridization Microarray Laboratory was one of the first US laboratories to offer comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) microarray testing using a commercial platform in a clinical setting. Results for 1076 patients (1598 chips) are presented.

Methods: The Spectral Genomics/PerkinElmer Constitutional Chip^TM (targeted array), SpectralChip 2600^TM (whole genome array) and a "Combo" chip (both arrays run simultaneously) were the tests offered. Abnormal results were confirmed by an alternative method, most often fluorescence in situ hybridisation.

Results: In 669 cases with known normal cytogenetics, an abnormal detection rate of 10.8% was observed, (5.3%, 12.2% and 14.1% for the Constitutional Chip^TM, SpectralChip 2600^TM and Combo assay, respectively). Known copy number variants and single clone abnormalities are not included in these rates. Single clone abnormalities are reported separately. For 1076 total cases, we report an average abnormal rate of 16.9% (8.7%, 23.7% and 18.6% for the three assays). This rate includes characterisation of some abnormalities previously identified by cytogenetics.

Conclusions: CGH microarray provides a likely aetiology for the clinical phenotype in many cytogenetically normal cases, and a whole genome array generally identifies copy number changes more effectively than a targeted chip alone.