Effects of subtelomeric copy number variations in miscarriages

References

• Lathi RB, Hazard FKG, Heerema-McKenney A, et al. First trimester miscarriage evaluation. Semin Reprod Med 2011;29:463–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berg MMJ, van Maarle MC, van Wely M, Goddijn M. Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta 2012;1822:1951–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambartsumyan G, Clark AT. Aneuploidy and early human embryo development. Hum Mol Genet 2008;17:10–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang YX, Zhang YP, Gu Y, et al. Genetic analysis of first-trimester miscarriages with a combination of cytogenetic karyotyping, microsatellite genotyping and arrayCGH. Clin Genet 2009;75:133–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabro AD, Driul L, Anis O, et al. Fetal gender ratio in recurrent miscarriages. Int J Women’s Health 2011;3:213–17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bulletti C, Flamigni C, Giacomucci E. Reproductive failure due to spontaneous abortion and recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod Update 1996;2:118–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren JE, Silver RM. Genetics of pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008;51:84–95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward KJ. Genetic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 2000;18:425–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajcan-Separovic E, Diego-Alvarez D, Robinson WP, et al. Identification of copy number variants in miscarriages from couples with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2913–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Genetic aspects of female reproduction. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:293–307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robberecht C, Pexsters A, Deprest J, et al. Cytogenetic and morphological analysis of early products of conception following hystero-embryoscopy from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:933–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brackley KJ, Kilby MD, Morton J, et al. A case of recurrent congenital fetal anomalies associated with a familial subtelomeric translocation. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:570–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakui K, Tanemura M, Suzumori K, et al. Clinical applications of two-color telomeric fluorescence in situ hybridization for prenatal diagnosis: identification of chromosomal translocation in five families with recurrent miscarriages or a child with multiple congenital anomalies. J Hum Genet 1999;44:85–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight SJL, Flint J. Perfect endings: a review of subtelomeric probes and their use in clinical diagnosis. J Med Genet 2000;37:401–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries BBA, White SM, Knight SJL, et al. Clinical studies on submicroscopic subtelomeric rearrangements: a checklist. J Med Genet 2001;38:145–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benzacken B, Carbillon L, Dupont C, et al. Lack of submicroskobic rearrengenements involving telomers in reproductive failures. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1154–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boehm D, Herold S, Kuechler A, et al. Rapid detection of subtelomeric deletion/duplication by novel real-time quantitative PCR using SYBR green dye. Hum Mutat 2004;23:368–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alkuraya KS, Martin CL, Kimonis VE. Recurrent miscarriage in a carrier of a balanced cytogenetically undetectable subtelomeric rearrangement: how many are we missing? Prenat Diagn 2006;26:291–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atlı K, Bozcuk N. Telomer ve Hücresel Yaşlanma. Turk J Geriatr 2002;5:111–14
   Google Scholar
• Monfort S, Orellana C, Oltra S, et al. Evaluation of MLPA for the detection of cryptic subtelomeric rearrangements. J Lab Clin Med 2006;147:295–300
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Durak B, Yeşil M, Özdemir M, et al. Is recurrent abortion an indication for subtelomeric region analysis? Turk Klinikleri J Med Sci 2010;30:1465–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao J, Liu C, Yao F, et al. Array based comparative genomic hybridization is more informative than conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the analysis of first trimester spontaneous abortion. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:1–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Berg C, Opstal DV, Brandenburg H, et al. Accuracy of abnormal karyotypes after the analysis of both short- and long-term culture of chorionic villi. Prenat Diagn 2000;20:956–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faas BH, Cirigliano V, Bui TH. Rapid methods for targeted prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;16:81–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer DW, Wise LA. The epidemiology of recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 2000;18:331–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carp HJA. Recurrent miscarriage: genetic factors and assessment of the embryo. IMAJ 2008;10:229–31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogge WA, Byrnes AL, Lanasa MC, Surti U. The clinical use of karyotyping spontaneous abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:397–402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljunger E, Cnattingius S, Lundin C, Anneren G. Chromosomal anomalies in first trimester miscarriages. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:1103–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutta UR, Rajitha P, Pidugu VK, Dalal AB. Cytogenetic abnormalities in 1162 couples with recurrent miscarriages in Southern region of India: report and review. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011;28:145–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kano T, Mori T, Kimura A. Gender ratio distortion in abortuses and live births from patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol 2009;62:125–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doria S, Lima V, Carvalho B, et al. Application of touch FISH in the study of mosaic tetraploidy and maternal cell contamination in pregnancy losses. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010;27:657–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruno DL, Burgess T, Ren H, et al. High-throughput analysis of chromosome abnormality in spontaneous miscarriage using an MLPA subtelomere assay with an ancillary FISH test for polyploidy. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:2786–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diego-Alvarez D, de Alba MR, Cardero-Merlo R, et al. MLPA as a screening method of aneuploidy and unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements in spontaneous miscarriages. Prenat Diagn 2007;27:765–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu Y, Xie JS, Luo FW, et al. Karyotype analysis of chorionic villi from pregnant women with missed abortion using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2009;44:509–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lei Q, Wang Q, Zhou CQ, et al. Genetic analysis of chorionic villi specimen in spontaneous abortion using various methods. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2009;44:253–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carvalho B, Dória S, Ramalho C, et al. Aneuploidies detection in miscarriages and fetal deaths using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification: an alternative for speeding up results? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;153:151–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaghue C, Mann K, Docherty Z, et al. Combined QFPCR and MLPA molecular analysis of miscarriage products: an efficient and robust alternative to karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:133–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland LS, Allen SK, Larkins SA, et al. Implementation and experience of an alternative QF-PCR and MLPA diagnostic strategy to detect chromosomal abnormalities in fetal and neonatal pathology samples. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2011;14:460–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yakut S, Berker-Karaüzüm S, Şimşek M, et al. Telomere-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis of couples with five or more recurrent miscarriages. Clin Genet 2002;61:26–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn JW, Ogilvie JM, Welch A, et al. Detection of subtelomere imbalance using MLPA: validation, development of an analysis protocol, and application in a diagnostic centre. BMC Med Genet 2007;8:1–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mademont-Soler I, Morales C, Bruguera J, et al. Subtelomeric MLPA: is it really useful in prenatal diagnosis? Prenat Diagn 2010;30:1165–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar