Evaluating Chromosomal Mosaicism in Prenatal Diagnosis: The Complementary Roles of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotyping

3Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the impact of in vitro cell subculture on prenatal diagnostic sample results and compare the efficacy of conventional karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in detecting chromosome mosaicism. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of G-banding karyotyping and CMA data from 2007 amniocentesis cases to investigate chromosome mosaicism. Results: Chromosome mosaicism was detected in 1.49% of cases (30/2007). Sex chromosome mosaicism was the most common form of mosaicism. Among the 30 mosaicisms, 18 results were consistent between the two methods. In four cases, CMA indicated mosaicism but the karyotypes were normal. In eight cases, CMA was normal while the karyotypes suggested mosaicism. Conclusions: CMA and karyotyping complement each other in prenatal genetic diagnosis. Combining both methods enhances detection accuracy, particularly in cases of chromosomal mosaicism, which may be missed after the subculture of adherent cells in karyotype analysis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xu, C., Xiong, Y., Wang, D., Zhang, S., Wu, X., & Li, M. (2025, February 1). Evaluating Chromosomal Mosaicism in Prenatal Diagnosis: The Complementary Roles of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotyping. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.25154

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free