ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Prenatal diagnosis of a trisomy 7 mosaic case: CMA, CNV-seq, karyotyping, interphase FISH, and MS-MLPA, which technique to choose?
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy outcomes of mosaicism detected by CMA-seq.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Prenatal diagnosis of imprinted associated chromosome abnormalities identified by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to perform a prenatal genetic diagnosis of a high-risk fetus with trisomy 7 identified by noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and to evaluate the efficacy of different genetic testing techniques for prenatal diagnosis of trisomy mosaicism.
methodsFor prenatal diagnosis of a pregnant woman with a high risk of trisomy 7 suggested by NIPT, karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) were performed on an amniotic fluid sample. Low-depth whole-genome copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used to clarify the results further. In addition, methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) was performed to analyze the possibility of uniparental disomy(UPD).
resultsAmniotic fluid karyotype analysis revealed a 46, XX result. Approximately 20% mosaic trisomy 7 was detected according to the CMA result. About 16% and 4% of mosaicism was detected by CNV-seq and FISH, respectively. MS-MLPA showed no methylation abnormalities. The fetal ultrasound did not show any detectable abnormalities except for mild intrauterine growth retardation seen at 39 weeks of gestation. After receiving genetic counseling, the expectant mother decided to continue the pregnancy, and follow-up within three months of delivery was normal.
conclusionIn high-risk NIPT diagnosis, a combination of cytogenetic and molecular genetic techniques proves fruitful in detecting low-level mosaicism. Furthermore, the exclusion of UPD on chromosome 7 remains crucial when NIPT indicates a positive prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 7.
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.