An alternative to array-based diagnostics: a prospectively recruited cohort, comparing arrayCGH to next-generation sequencing to evaluate foetal structural abnormalities

References

• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. 2013. Committee Opinion No. 581: The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Obstetrics and Gynecology 122:1374–1377.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Association for Clinical Cytogenetics. 2009. Prenatal Diagnosis Best Practice Guidelines. Available from: http://www.acgs.uk.com/media/765666/acc_prenatal_bp_dec2009_1.00.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bi W, Breman AM, Venable SF, Eng PA, Sahoo T, Lu X-Y, et al. 2008. Rapid prenatal diagnosis using uncultured amniocytes and oligonucleotide array CGH. Prenatal Diagnosis 28:943–949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breman A, Pursley AN, Hixson P, Bi W, Ward P, Bacino CA, et al. 2012. Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis in a diagnostic laboratory; experience with >1000 cases and a review of the literature. Prenatal Diagnosis 32:351–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiang DY, Getz G, Jaffe DB, O'Kelly MJ, Zhao X, Carter SL, et al. 2009. High-resolution mapping of copy-number alterations with massively parallel sequencing. Nature Methods 6:99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen K, Tzika A, Wood H, Berri S, Roberts P, Mason G, et al. 2015. Diagnosis of fetal submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities in failed array CGH samples: copy number by sequencing as an alternative to microarrays for invasive fetal testing. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 45:394–401.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Firth HV, Richards SM, Bevan AP, Clayton S, Corpas M, Rajan D, et al. 2009. DECIPHER: Database of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans Using Ensembl Resources. American Journal of Human Genetics 84:524–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilboa Y, Perlman S, Pode-Shakked N, Pode-Shakked B, Shrim A, Azaria-Lahav E, et al. 2016. Prenatal diagnosis of 17q12 deletion syndrome: from fetal hyperechogenic kidneys to high risk for autism. Prenatal Diagnosis 36:1027–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotta S, D’Elia G, Scavelli R, Genovese S, Surace C, Sirleto P, et al. 2015. Advantages of a next generation sequencing targeted approach for the molecular diagnosis of retinoblastoma. BMC Cancer 15:841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes JL, Tzika A, Thygesen H, Berri S, Wood HM, Hewitt S, et al. 2013. Diagnosis of copy number variation by Illumina next generation sequencing is comparable in performance to oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridisation. Genomics 102:174–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman SC, McMullan DJ, Hall G, Togneri FS, James N, Maher EJ, et al. 2013. Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 41:610–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, McMullan DJ, Davison EV, Maher ER, et al. 2011. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 37:6–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Illumina. 2014. Quality Measures for CytoChip Microarrays. How to evaluate CytoChip Oligo data quality in Bluefuse Multi software.
   Google Scholar
• Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, Quintero-Rivera F, South ST, Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. 2011. American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genetics in Medicine 13:680–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Durbin R. 2009. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 25:1754–1760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. 2009. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 25:2078–2079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RK, Feuk L, Scherer SW. 2014. The Database of Genomic Variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Research 42:D986–D992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Jung EH, Ryu RS, Kang HW, Ko JM, Kim HJ, et al. 2011. Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases. Molecular Cytogenetics 4:12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldarriaga W, García-Perdomo HA, Arango-Pineda J, Fonseca J. 2015. Karyotype versus genomic hybridization for the prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities: a metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 212:330.e1–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal College of Pathologists. 2015. Recommendations for the use of chromosome microarray in pregnancy [online]. Available from: https://www.rcpath.org/asset/06664C28%2D0F90%2D4230%2D86158C91FEA14BE6 [Accessed: 19 January, 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Venkatraman ES, Olshen AB. 2007. A faster circular binary segmentation algorithm for the analysis of array CGH data. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 23:657–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, et al. 2012. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. The New England Journal of Medicine 367:2175–2184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson CM, Crinnion LA, Tzika A, Mills A, Coates A, Pendlebury M, et al. 2014. Diagnostic whole genome sequencing and split-read mapping for nucleotide resolution breakpoint identification in CNTNAP2 deficiency syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 164A:2649–2655.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xie C, Tammi MT. 2009. CNV-seq, a new method to detect copy number variation using high-throughput sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics 10:80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon S, Xuan Z, Makarov V, Ye K, Sebat J. 2009. Sensitive and accurate detection of copy number variants using read depth of coverage. Genome Research 19:1586–1592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao M, Wang Q, Wang Q, Jia P, Zhao Z. 2013. Computational tools for copy number variation (CNV) detection using next-generation sequencing data: features and perspectives. BMC Bioinformatics 14:S1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar