Since the inception of clinical cytogenetics in the late 1950s, the field has witnessed the evolution of multiple methodologies for the evaluation of chromosomal imbalances and rearrangements. From the replacement of solidly stained chromosomes by Giemsa banding (G-banding) to in situ hybridization and microarrays, each technique has sought to detect smaller and smaller chromosomal aberrations across the genome. Microarray analysis has revealed that copy-number variants—a class of mutation resulting from the loss (deletion) or gain (duplication) of genomic material that is >1 kb in size—are among the significant contributors to human disease and normal variation. Here, we evaluate the history and utility of various methodologies and their impact on the current practice of clinical cytogenetics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Alkan C, Kidd JM, Marques-Bonet T, Aksay G, Antonacci F. 1.  et al. 2009. Personalized copy number and segmental duplication maps using next-generation sequencing. Nat. Genet. 41:1061–67 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. Am. Coll. Obstet. Gynecol. Comm. Genet., Soc. Matern.-Fetal Med 2013. The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Committee Opinion No. 581 Obstet. Gynecol. 122:1374–77 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baptista J, Mercer C, Prigmore E, Gribble SM, Carter NP. 3.  et al. 2008. Breakpoint mapping and array CGH in translocations: comparison of a phenotypically normal and an abnormal cohort. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82:927–36 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaudet AL. 4.  2013. The utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in developmental and behavioral pediatrics. Child Dev. 84:121–32 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bi W, Borgan C, Pursley A, Hixson P, Shaw C. 5.  et al. 2012. Comparison of chromosome analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis: What is the value of chromosome analysis in today's genomic array era?. Genet. Med. 15:450–57 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bianchi DW, Parker L, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C. 6.  et al. 2014. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:799–808 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, Abuhamad AZ, Sehnert AJ, Rava RP. 7.  2012. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet. Gynecol. 119:890–901 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biesecker LG. 8.  2002. The end of the beginning of chromosome ends. Am. J. Med. Genet. 107:263–66 [Google Scholar]
  9. Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. 9.  2013. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat. Diagn. 33:1119–23 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hastings PJ, Lupski JR, Rosenberg SM, Ira G. 10.  2009. Mechanisms of change in gene copy number. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10:551–64 [Google Scholar]
  11. Higgins AW, Alkuraya FS, Bosco AF, Brown KK, Bruns GA. 11.  et al. 2008. Characterization of apparently balanced chromosomal rearrangements from the developmental genome anatomy project. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 82:712–22 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hook EB. 12.  1977. Exclusion of chromosomal mosaicism: tables of 90%, 95% and 99% confidence limits and comments on use. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 29:94–97 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hook EB, Healy NP, Willey AM. 13.  1989. How much difference does banding make? Adjustments in prevalence and mutation rates of human structural cytogenetic abnormalities. Ann. Hum. Genet. 53:237–42 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hook EB, Schreinemachers DM, Willey AM, Cross PK. 14.  1984. Inherited structural cytogenetic abnormalities detected incidentally in fetuses diagnosed prenatally: frequency, parental-age associations, sex-ratio trends, and comparisons with rates of mutants. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 36:422–43 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hsu TC. 15.  1952. Mammalian chromosome in vitro. I. The karyotype of man. J. Hered. 43:167–72 [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang N, Lee I, Marcotte EM, Hurles ME. 16.  2010. Characterising and predicting haploinsufficiency in the human genome. PLOS Genet. 6e1001154
  17. Iafrate AJ, Feuk L, Rivera MN, Listewnik ML, Donahoe P. 17.  et al. 2004. Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome. Nat. Genet. 36:949–51 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jacobs PA, Browne C, Gregson N, Joyce C, White H. 18.  1992. Estimates of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities detectable in unselected newborns using moderate levels of banding. J. Med. Genet. 29:103–8 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacobs PA, Strong JA. 19.  1959. A case of human intersexuality having a possible XXY sex-determining mechanism. Nature 183:302–3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaminsky EB, Kaul V, Paschall J, Church DM, Bunke B. 20.  et al. 2011. An evidence-based approach to establish the functional and clinical significance of copy number variants in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Genet. Med. 13:777–84 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kearney HM, South ST, Wolff DJ, Lamb A, Hamosh A, Rao KW. 21.  2011. American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities. Genet. Med. 13:676–79 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lejeune J, Gautier M, Turpin R. 22.  1959. Etude des chromosomes somatiques de neuf enfants mongoliens. C. R. Hebd. Seanc. Acad. Sci. 248:1721–22 [Google Scholar]
  23. MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RK, Feuk L, Scherer SW. 23.  2013. The database of genomic variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 42:D986–92 [Google Scholar]
  24. Manning M, Hudgins L. 24.  2010. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet. Med. 12:742–45 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mefford HC, Eichler EE. 25.  2009. Duplication hotspots, rare genomic disorders, and common disease. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 19:196–204 [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller DT, Adam M, Swaroop A, Biesecker L, Brothman A. 26.  et al. 2010. Consensus statement: Chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 586:749–64 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morris CM, Fitzgerald PH. 27.  1985. An evaluation of high resolution chromosome banding of hematologic cells by methotrexate synchronization and thymidine release. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 14:275–84 [Google Scholar]
  28. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, Karimi A, Laurent LC. 28.  et al. 2012. Non-Invasive Chromosomal Evaluation (NICE) Study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 207:137.e1–8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ordulu Z, Wong KE, Currall BB, Ivanov AR, Pereira S. 29.  et al. 2014. Describing sequencing results of structural chromosome rearrangements with a suggested next-generation cytogenetic nomenclature. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 94:695–709 [Google Scholar]
  30. Palomaki GE, Kloza EM, Lambert-Messerlian GM, Haddow JE, Neveux LM. 30.  et al. 2011. DNA sequencing of maternal plasma to detect Down syndrome: an international clinical validation study. Genet. Med. 13:913–20 [Google Scholar]
  31. Peng HH, Chao AS, Wang TH, Chang YL, Chang SD. 31.  2006. Prenatally diagnose balanced chromosome rearrangements: eight years' experience. J. Reprod. Med. 51:699–703 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinkel D, Segraves R, Sudar D, Clark S, Poole I. 32.  et al. 1998. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat. Genet. 20:207–11 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ravnan JB, Tepperberg JH, Papenhausen P, Lamb AN, Hedrick J. 33.  et al. 2005. Subtelomere FISH analysis of 11 688 cases: an evaluation of the frequency and pattern of subtelomere rearrangements in individuals with developmental disabilities. J. Med. Genet. 43:478–89 [Google Scholar]
  34. Reddy UM, Page GP, Saade GR, Silver RM, Thorsten VR. 34.  et al. 2012. Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. N. Engl. J. Med. 367:2185–93 [Google Scholar]
  35. Riggs ER, Church DM, Hanson K, Horner VL, Kaminsky EB. 35.  et al. 2012. Towards an evidence-based process for the clinical interpretation of copy number variation. Clin. Genet. 81:403–12 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sahoo T, Ross L, Kopita K, Mahon L, Wang J-C. 36.  et al. 2013. Whole genome oligonucleotide-SNP arrays in prenatal diagnosis: advancement in identification of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities Abstr. 382, Am. Soc. Hum. Genet. Meet., Boston, October 22–26
  37. Shaffer LG, Bejjani BA. 37.  2004. A cytogeneticist's perspective on genomic microarrays. Hum. Reprod. Update 10:221–26 [Google Scholar]
  38. South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, Higgins AW, Kearney HM. 38.  2013. ACMG standards and guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet. Med. 15:901–9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Talkowski ME, Ernst C, Heilbut A, Chiang C, Hanscom C. 39.  et al. 2011. Next-generation sequencing strategies enable routine detection of balanced chromosome rearrangements for clinical diagnostics and genetic research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 88:469–81 [Google Scholar]
  40. Talkowski ME, Ordulu Z, Pillalamarri V, Benson CB, Blumenthal I. 40.  et al. 2012. Clinical diagnosis by whole-genome sequencing of a prenatal sample. N. Engl. J. Med. 367:2226–32 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tjio JH, Levan A. 41.  1956. The chromosome number in man. Hereditas 42:1–6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wapner R, Martin C, Levy B, Balif B, Eng C. 42.  et al. 2012. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 367:2175–84 [Google Scholar]
  43. Warburton D. 43.  1991. De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 49:995–1013 [Google Scholar]
  44. Warburton D, Jobanputra V, Aggarwal V, Sobrino A, Macera M. 44.  et al. 2013. Comparison of results between karyotypes and microarray testing in postnatal and prenatal specimens: Karyotyping is not dead yet Abstr. 22, Am. Soc. Hum. Genet. Meet., Boston, Oct. 22–26
  45. Yoon S, Xuan Z, Makarov V, Ye K, Sebat J. 45.  2009. Sensitive and accurate detection of copy number variants using read depth of coverage. Genome Res. 19:1586–92 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error