Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases
Do you wish to request the book?
Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases
2019
Overview
Background Pregnancy loss affects 10%–15% of pregnancies and is caused by several factors, maternal and fetal. Most common cause is chromosomal aneuploidy and has traditionally been detected by karyotyping product of conception and/or fetal tissue. In recent years, array comparative genomic hybridization (a‐CGH) has been used because of its higher detection and lower failure rates. Methods DNA was extracted from 1625 products of abortion or fetal tissue. In 1,104 cases both quantitative fluorescent‐polymerase chain reaction (QF‐PCR) and a‐CGH, and in 521 cases only a‐CGH, was performed. Results The detection rate using QF‐PCR and a‐CGH is 20% compared to 12.7%, overall, and 15.7%, excluding failed samples, by karyotypes in our center. QF‐PCR and a‐CGH failed in 1.9% of cases, while the failure rate for karyotypes was 20.1%. The difference of detection and failure rates is significant (p‐value < 0.001 and p‐value < 0.001 respectively). Unexpectedly we also found a significant difference in frequency of imbalances in related versus unrelated couples. (χ2 = 11.4926, p‐value < 0.001). Conclusion It is highly likely that the pregnancy loss in consanguineous couples is caused by other genetic and immune mechanisms. It is plausible that, through the same mechanism by which single gene disorders have a higher prevalence of manifesting disease in consanguineous couples, they can cause lethal genetic disorders leading to pregnancy loss and intra‐uterine fetal death (IUFD) in these couples. Our findings suggest that this is a matter for further study as it will greatly influence the approach to counseling and managing consanguineous couples with pregnancy loss. This study is a review of 1625 product of abortion and fetal tissue using Array comparative genomic hybridization in combination with QF‐PCR. This is the second largest study with the main difference 35 percent of couples are related. We found a statistically significant difference between copy number variations and aneuploidies found in related versus unrelated couples.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.