Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 402       
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 138  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 135-142

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using non-commercial probes in the diagnosis of clinically suspected microdeletion syndromes


1 Department of Reproductive Biology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Ashutosh Halder
Additional Professor, Department of Reproductive Biology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 24056568

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Background & objectives: Microdeletion syndromes are characterized by small (<5 Mb) chromosomal deletions in which one or more genes are involved. These are frequently associated with multiple congenital anomalies. The phenotype is the result of haploinsufficiency of genes in the critical interval. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique is commonly used for precise genetic diagnosis of microdeletion syndromes. This study was conducted to assess the role of FISH in the diagnosis of suspected microdeletion syndrome. Methods: FISH was carried out on 301 clinically suspected microdeletion syndrome cases for the confirmation of clinical diagnosis using non-commercial probes. Of these, 177 cases were referred for 22q11.2 microdeletion, 42 cases were referred for William syndrome, 38 cases were referred for Prader Willi/Angelman and 44 cases were referred for other suspected microdeletion syndromes. Results: FISH was confirmatory in 23 cases only (7.6%). There were 17 cases of 22q11.2 microdeletion, four cases of Prader Willi syndrome and two cases of William syndrome. Interpretation & conclusion: We conclude that FISH should not be the method of choice for clinically suspected microdeletion syndromes. We propose to follow strict clinical criteria for FISH testing or preferably to follow better methods (genotype first approach). Whole genome screening may be used as first line of test and FISH may be used for confirmation of screening result, screening of family members and prenatal diagnosis.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1190    
    Printed21    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded286    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal