ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis has become a valuable adjunct in cytogenetics, providing a rapid screen for common chromosome abnormalities that is particularly helpful in prenatal diagnosis. FISH analysis using standard microscopy is expensive and labor intensive, requiring both a high skill level and subjective signal interpretation. A reliable fully automated system for FISH analysis could improve laboratory efficiency and potentially reduce errors and costs. METHODS: The efficacy of an automated system was compared to standard manual FISH analysis. Two sets of slides were generated from each of 152 amniotic fluid samples. Following hybridization with a standard panel of five chromosome FISH probes, one set of slides was evaluated using manual microscopy. The other set was evaluated using an automated microscopy system. RESULTS: A diagnostic outcome was obtained for all 152 samples using manual microscopy and for 146 of 152 (96%) samples using automated microscopy. Three cases of aneuploidy were detected. For those samples for which a diagnostic outcome was determined by both manual and automated microscopy, 100% concordance was observed. All FISH analysis results were confirmed by karyotype. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that an automated microscopy system is capable of providing accurate and rapid enumeration of FISH signals in amniocytes.
Subject(s)
Amniotic Fluid/cytology , Chromosome Disorders/diagnosis , In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence/methods , Prenatal Diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Automation , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Pregnancy , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
In a search for potential infertility loci, which might be revealed by clustering of chromosomal breakpoints, we compiled 464 infertile males with a balanced rearrangement from Mendelian Cytogenetics Network database (MCNdb) and compared their karyotypes with those of a Danish nation-wide cohort. We excluded Robertsonian translocations, rearrangements involving sex chromosomes and common variants. We identified 10 autosomal bands, five of which were on chromosome 1, with a large excess of breakpoints in the infertility group. Some of these could potentially harbour a male-specific infertility locus. However, a general excess of breakpoints almost everywhere on chromosome 1 was observed among the infertile males: 26.5 versus 14.5% in the cohort. This excess was observed both for translocation and inversion carriers, especially pericentric inversions, both for published and unpublished cases, and was significantly associated with azoospermia. The largest number of breakpoints was reported in 1q21; FISH mapping of four of these breakpoints revealed that they did not involve the same region at the molecular level. We suggest that chromosome 1 harbours a critical domain whose integrity is essential for male fertility.