ArticleMolecular biotechnology2014
Perspective on the technical challenges involved in the implementation of array-CGH in prenatal diagnostic testing.
Article in Molecular biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA concentrations in amniotic fluid according to gestational age and fetal sex: data from 2573 samples.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization.Porto biomedical journal · 2018Article
- Genome-Wide Transcriptional Excavation of Dipsacus asperoides Unmasked both Cryptic Asperosaponin Biosynthetic Genes and SSR Markers.Frontiers in plant science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Our aim was to construct a streamlined technical workflow to facilitate a prospective, multi-centre evaluation of array comparative genomic hybridisation (array-CGH) in the prenatal diagnostic context. A collection of commercially available DNA extraction and quantification techniques were evaluated and compared using minimal quantities of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi and cultured cells. When prenatal DNA of suitable quality and quantity was obtained, array-CGH was performed using Oxford Gene Technology's (OGT, Oxford, UK) CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. With starting quantities of 2-4 ml amniotic fluid, 2-5 mg chorionic villi or under 150,000 cultured cells the following optimised technical workflow was identified: DNA extraction using the iGENatal™ kit (igenbiotech, Madrid, Spain) and quantification by the Qubit® 2.0 Fluorometer with the Qubit® dsDNA BR assay kit (Invitrogen™, Eugene, OR, USA). In addition, it was elucidated that array-CGH can be successfully performed with as little as 125 ng DNA in the experiment using the OGT CytoSure™ ISCA 8 × 60 K oligo array platform. Amidst an on-going debate on whether array-CGH should be applied in the prenatal diagnostic setting, by following the technical recommendations described here genetics laboratories can now gain exposure to prenatal array-CGH testing without compromising the conventional karyotype result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.