ArticleGenes2024
Comparative Analysis of Two NGS-Based Platforms for Product-of-Conception Karyotyping.
Article in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cytogenetic information about the product of conception (POC) is important to determine the presence of recurrent chromosomal abnormalities that are an indication for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy or structural rearrangements. Although microscopic examination by G-staining has long been used for such an evaluation, detection failures are relatively common with this method, due to cell-culture-related issues. The utility of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (lcWGS) using short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been highlighted recently as an alternative cytogenomic approach for POC analysis. We, here, performed comparative analysis of two NGS-based protocols for this purpose based on different short-read sequencers (the Illumina VeriSeq system using a MiSeq sequencer and the Thermo Fisher ReproSeq system using an Ion S5 sequencer). The cytogenomic diagnosis obtained with each NGS method was equivalent in each of 20 POC samples analyzed. Notably, X chromosome sequence reads were reduced in some female samples with both systems. The possibility of low-level mosaicism for monosomy X as an explanation for this was excluded by FISH analysis. Additional data from samples with various degrees of X chromosome aneuploidy suggested that it was a technical artifact related to X chromosome inactivation. Indeed, subsequent nanopore sequencing indicated that the DNA in the samples showing the artifact was predominantly unmethylated. Our current findings indicate that although X chromosome data must be interpreted with caution, both the systems we tested for NGS-based lcWGS are useful alternatives for the karyotyping of POC samples.
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.