核型分析联合CNV-seq技术在羊水染色体嵌合体检测中的应用

目的 探讨羊水染色体核型分析联合基因组拷贝数变异测序(CNV-seq)技术在羊水染色体嵌合体检测中的应用。方法 通过常规染色体核型分析和CNV-seq技术对该院3 920例羊水标本进行检测,将结果为嵌合体的病例进行回顾性分析。结果 (1)3 920例羊水标本中,核型分析联合CNV-seq技术共检出嵌合体21例,检出率为0.53%。其中,核型分析检出嵌合体共19例,检出率为0.48%,CNV-seq技术检出嵌合体共12例,检出率为0.33%。(2)血清学筛查高风险标本检出嵌合体10例,无创产前检测结果异常标本检出嵌合体6例,高龄标本检出嵌合体3例,超声结果异常标本检出嵌合体2例。(3)两种检测方法联合检出的嵌合体中,性染色体数目或结构异常占比最高,其次为常染色体数目异常。结论 羊水染色体核型分析联合CNV-seq技术检测可提高羊水染色体嵌合体的检出率。     

梧州地区2889例羊水染色体核型结果分析

目的:分析2889例孕中期羊水染色体核型异常检出率及异常类型.方法:通过无菌羊膜腔穿刺术获取羊水细胞培养,采用G显带技术进行染色体核型分析.结果:羊水细胞培养成功2889份,检出染色体异常核型139例,异常检出率为4.81％.其中染色体数目异常(包括嵌合体)108例,常染色体数目异常最高为21-三体55例,其次为18-...     

CNV-seq与染色体核型分析在产前诊断中联合应用的价值

目的 分析基于二代测序技术的基因组拷贝数变异测序(CNV-Seq)与染色体核型分析在产前诊断中的价值,为临床咨询提供更多信息。方法 选取2019年2月至2021年12月在贵港市妇幼保健院就诊具有产前诊断指征的孕妇1 155例为研究对象,标本类型为羊水或脐带血,所有标本均行染色体核型分析和CNV-seq检测。结果 1 155例标本中,染色体核型分析检出异常97例,异常检出率为8.39%。其中数目异常63例,结构异常25例,染色体嵌合体9例。CNV-seq检出染色体拷贝数变异112例,异常检出率为9.69%,其中非整倍体63例,已知致病变异30例,疑似致病变异16例,嵌合体3例。结论 CNV-seq检测与染色体核型分析联合应用可以提高染色体遗传病的检出率,为孕妇的妊娠选择提供较好的遗传学依据,避免遗传病患儿的出生,提高出生人口素质。     

羊水细胞培养及染色体核型分析在产前诊断中的应用

目的 探讨羊水细胞培养及染色体核型分析在产前诊断中的应用价值.方法 从中孕期妇女羊膜腔穿刺获取羊水,细胞培养后分析染色体核型,进行产前诊断.结果 17例产前诊断患者羊水细胞培养及制片成功率均为100%,共检出异常染色体核型3例,检出率为17.65%,其中21三体2例(11.76%),胎儿2N/4N嵌合体1例(5.88%...     

扬州地区531例羊水染色体核型分析

目的分析产前诊断的孕妇羊水细胞染色体核型,讨论产前诊断指标对诊断胎儿染色体的意义。方法对531例有产前诊断指征的孕妇在B超介导下行羊膜腔穿刺术,取羊水细胞培养和染色体制备,对结果进行分析。结果 B超介导下行羊膜腔穿刺术,穿刺失败2例,穿刺成功529例,培养成功的例数为521例,成功率为98.49%。染色体正常核型510例,核型异常11例,异常率为2.11%。结论羊膜腔穿刺术是一种安全,可靠的产前诊断方法,在孕中期就能鉴别异常核型,对于减少染色体异常胎儿的出生有着重要的意义。     

产前诊断羊水染色体细胞遗传学分析

目的:分析产前诊断的孕妇羊水细胞染色体核型,探讨染色体异常核型与产前诊断指征的关系。方法:从2008年1月至2011年6月对产前筛查为高风险的孕妇3347例在B超介导下行羊膜腔穿刺术,取羊水细胞培养,并对结果进行分析。结果:羊水细胞培养成功率为99.9%(3344/3347),核型分析的成功率为100%,发现异常核型92例(2.75%)。结论:本方法是一种实用的产前诊断方法,在孕中期就能鉴别异常核型,对于减少染色体异常胎儿的出生有着重要的意义。     

CNV-seq联合染色体G显带核型分析在唐氏综合征产前诊断中的应用价值

目的 通过联合使用低深度全基因组测序(CNV-seq)技术与染色体G显带核型分析技术检测孕妇羊水中胎儿脱落细胞,评估2种检测技术在唐氏综合征产前诊断中联合应用的意义。方法 以2018年7月至2022年7月在亳州市人民医院经无创产前基因检测显示为高风险的60例孕妇为研究对象,通过抽取羊水获得胎儿样本60份,同时对胎儿样本进行CNV-seq检测和染色体G显带核型分析,统计检测结果,比较分析CNV-seq检测、染色体G显带核型分析、CNV-seq联合染色体G显带核型分析检测结果。结果 60份羊水样本CNV-seq检测和染色体G显带核型分析成功率均为100%。(1)CNV-seq检测、染色体G显带核型分析、CNV-seq联合染色体G显带核型分析检测出21三体、18三体及13三体的异常检出率一致,分别为70.6%、60.0%、25.0%。(2)其他类型染色体的异常检出率排序为染色体G显带核型分析(41.9%)相似文献   

187例介入性产前诊断双胎的染色体核型和染色体微阵列结果分析

目的探讨染色体核型分析和染色体微阵列分析(CMA)对于双胎妊娠的产前诊断价值。方法回顾性分析187例产前诊断双胎孕妇(374个胎儿)的染色体G显带和染色体微阵列检测结果。结果 374个胎儿染色体G显带分析结果共检出31个异常核型胎儿(8.29%,31/374)。异常核型中数目异常19个(61.29%,19/31);嵌合体4个(12.90%,4/31);结构异常10个(32.26%,10/31)。374个胎儿染色体微阵列分析结果中,异常结果有36例(9.63%,36/374)。36个异常结果中数目异常18个(50%,18/36),嵌合体异常3个(8.33%,4/36),结构异常15个(41.67%,15/36)。在染色体核型正常的343个胎儿中,共检出CMA异常胎儿11个,额外检出率为3.21%(11/343)。联合两种检测方法结果,374个胎儿中共检测出异常胎儿42个,总异常率11.23%(42/374)。结论对于有指征的双胎孕妇,应更严格地进行介入性产前诊断,建议其同时联合染色体核型和染色体微阵列检测,减少出生缺陷的发生。     

染色体核型分析与优生

目的：通过染色体核型分析，探讨染色体检查在优生优育中的作用。方法：外周血、脐带血染色体检查采用淋巴细胞培养法进行G显带分析；羊水染色体检查采用张氏培养基、5％CO2环境进行羊水细胞培养，行G显带分析。结果：经420例外周血染色体检查，染色体异常37例；35例羊水染色体检查，有4例染色体异常；22例脐带血染色体检查，有3例染色体异常。结论：通过染色体检查，可以有效地降低染色体病患儿的出生，提高人口素质。     

羊水原位培养法联合染色体微阵列分析在产前诊断中的应用

摘要:目的评估 羊水原位培养法联合染色体微阵列分析(CMA)技术在产前诊断检出胎儿染色体异常中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析2018年10月至2023年2月于怀化市妇幼保健院因不同产前诊断指征而行羊水穿刺术的3133例孕妇,比较羊.水原位培养法和CMA法在胎儿染色体异常方面的检出率和差异。结果在3133例样本中,双指征组的异常检出率均较单指征组分别增加0.95%(羊水原位培养法)和2.36% ( CMA);两种技术联合检测共检出796例异常(检出率25.41%),其中羊水原位培养法检出300例(9.58%) ,CMA法检出706例(22.53%)。两者均能检出145 例非整倍体异常和31例染色体结构异常,但CMA另增加检出169例提示致病或可能致病的染色体拷贝数变异(CNV)、杂合性缺失(L0H)、杂合性不存在( A0H)/纯合区域(ROH)及单亲体二倍体异常(UPD),而羊水原位培养法增加检出11 例染色体结构异常。两者联合检出嵌合体23例(0.73%)。结论羊水原位培养法与 CMA技术互为补充,联合应用可显著提高胎儿染色体异常的检出率,可为产前遗传咨.询提供更详细准确的信息,有助于孕妇决策是否终止妊娠。     

荧光原位杂交技术与染色体核型分析在产前诊断中的应用

目的探索荧光原位杂交技术(FISH)在产前诊断中的临床应用价值及相对于羊水细胞染色体核型分析的优缺点。方法对2012年4月至2013年11月在梅州市人民医院进行唐氏综合征筛查并诊断为高危的183例孕妇进行羊水细胞核型分析及FISH诊断,并对结果进行分析。结果核型分析结果显示,183例孕妇中有核型异常者9例,其中3例18-三体,3例21-三体,1例XXY和2例XO;FISH诊断结果显示8例异常,其中2例18-三体,3例21-三体,1例XXY和2例XO。结论 FISH技术用于产前诊断效率和成功率高,但单纯FISH诊断会出现小概率的漏诊,可与核型分析互补缺陷,使产前诊断效能最大化。     

The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis

ObjectiveTo compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples.Materials and methodsA total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G‐banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray.ResultThirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases.ConclusionBoth karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis.     

Prenatal genetic diagnosis of omphalocele by karyotyping,chromosomal microarray analysis and exome sequencing

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to share our experience in the prenatal diagnosis of omphalocele by karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and whole exome sequencing (WES).MethodsIn this retrospective study, 81 cases of omphalocele were identified from 2015 to 2020. Associated anomalies and prenatal diagnosis based on karyotyping, CMA and WES were analysed.ResultsFifty-eight (71.6%) of the 81 foetuses had other ultrasound anomalies. Giant omphalocele was present in 11 cases (13.6%) and small omphalocele was present in 70 cases (86.4%). Chromosomal abnormalities were found in 24 foetuses (29.6%, 24/81), the most common of which were trisomy 18 (58.8%, 11/24) and trisomy 13 (29.2%, 7/24). Compared to isolated omphalocele, non-isolated omphalocele was accompanied by an increased prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities (4.3% (1/23) vs. 39.7% (23/58), χ² = 8.226, p = .004). All chromosomal abnormalities were found in small omphalocele. Aside from aneuploidy, CMA showed one pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) for a detection rate of 1.2%, one variants of unknown significance (VOUS) and one instance of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). WES was performed on 3 non-isolated cases, and one was found to have pathogenic variants.ConclusionsThe most common genetic cause of omphalocele is aneuploidy and the prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities is increased with non-isolated and small omphalocele. CMA and WES can be useful for providing further genetic information to assist in prenatal counselling and pregnancy management.     

Combined diagnosis of QF‐PCR and CNV‐Seq in fetal chromosomal abnormalities: A new perspective on prenatal diagnosis

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of QF‐PCR and CNV‐seq in diagnosing prenatal fetal chromosomal aberrations, explore the advantages and necessity of multimethod joint diagnosis.MethodsWe chose pregnant women with the indication of fetal chromosome examination in our hospital last year, collected 657 cases of amniotic fluid for QF‐PCR and CNV‐seq analyzes.ResultsWhile detecting aneuploidy, the coincidence rate of QF‐PCR and CNV‐seq was 100% (56/56). For all 46 chromosomes, 523 cases (79.60%, 523/657) coincided precisely, 128 cases (19.48%, 128/657) showed abnormality with CNV‐seq, 8 cases (1.22%, 8/657) revealed abnormality by QF‐PCR. In serological Down''s syndrome screening, 328 cases showed a high risk of trisomy 21, of which CNV‐seq and QF‐PCR were consistent in 4 cases (1.22%, 4/328), CNV‐seq found 87 cases of CNVs in 78 samples except for chromosomal aneuploidy abnormalities, among these, 18 cases (20.69%, 18/87) were polymorphic, 7 cases (8.05%, 7/87) might cause disease, 13 cases (14.94%, 13/87) caused disease explicitly, 21 cases (24.14%, 21/87) were possibly benign, 17 cases (19.54%, 17/87) were explicitly benign, and the classification of 11 cases (12.64%, 11/87) was unclear.ConclusionQF‐PCR and CNV‐seq were highly consistent in diagnosing chromosomal aneuploidy. The high risk of serological Down''s screening might not only due to the aneuploidy of chromosomes 21, 18, and NTD, but also the microdeletion or microduplication of all 46 chromosomes. So using CNV‐seq combined with QF‐PCR could effectively reduce the risk of missed diagnosis.     

Patient-reported outcomes,health-related quality of life,and acute medication use in patients with a ≥ 75% response to eptinezumab: subgroup pooled analysis of the PROMISE trials

BackgroundPROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 evaluated the preventive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide–targeted monoclonal antibody, in adults with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), finding significant reductions in migraine frequency. This post hoc analysis compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and acute medication use in patients with a ≥ 75% migraine responder rate (MRR) after treatment with eptinezumab to patients with a ≥ 50– < 75% MRR.MethodsPROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. This analysis included patients from both studies treated with eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg who experienced ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over Weeks 1–12 (wks1–12). In both studies, HRQoL was measured by the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and acute medication usage. PROMISE-2 also included the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).ResultsIn PROMISE-1, a total of 115/443 (26.0%; 100 mg, n = 49, 300 mg, n = 66) and 120/443 (27.0%; 100 mg, n = 61, 300 mg, n = 59) eptinezumab-treated patients achieved ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, respectively. In PROMISE-2, a total of 211/706 (30.0%; 100 mg, n = 95; 300 mg, n = 116) and 209/706 (29.6%; 100 mg, n = 110, 300 mg, n = 99) eptinezumab-treated patients achieved ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, respectively. EM and CM patients with ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12 showed reduced use of acute headache medication and increased HRQoL to normative levels across SF-36 domains of bodily pain, social functioning, and physical functioning. In CM patients with ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, the mean change in HIT-6 total score with eptinezumab (pooled) was − 11.7 and − 7.6, respectively. “Very much” or “much” improvement responses were reported in 41.8% and 16.5% on PI-MBS and 36.2% and 20.0% on PGIC in ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR, respectively.ConclusionEptinezumab treatment induced a ≥ 75% MRR over wks1–12 in the majority of patients. This patient subgroup reported substantial improvements in PROs associated with headache-related life impact and HRQoL, and reductions in acute headache medication use, which were more marked than those in the ≥ 50–< 75% responders. This study supports the clinical meaningfulness of ≥ 75% MRR for patients with either EM or CM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02559895","term_id":"NCT02559895"}}NCT02559895 (PROMISE-1), {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02974153","term_id":"NCT02974153"}}NCT02974153 (PROMISE-2).Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01386-z.