TABLE 1
FROM:
A comparison of different metaphase CGH methods for the detection of cryptic chromosome aberrations of defined size
Jacqueline Schoumans, Kate Nielsen, Iben Jeppesen, Britt-Marie Anderlid, Elisabeth Blennow, Karen Brøndum-Nielsen and Magnus Nordenskjöld
BACK TO ARTICLETable 1. CGH analysis performed blinded and semiblinded
| CGH analysis by ULS® labeling and Quips software | CGH analysis by nick translation and HR-CGH software | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semiblinded | Completely blinded | Semiblinded | Completely blinded | ||||
| Case | Abnormality | Case | Abnormality | Case | Abnormality | Case | Abnormality |
| 1 | Monosomy 7q | 11 | Deletion 10q25 | 11 | Deletion 10q25 | 1 | Monosomy 7q |
| Trisomy 10q | 12 | Deletion 4p | 12 | Deletion 4p | Trisomy 10q | ||
| 2 | Monosomy 18p | 13 | Deletion 15q11–q13 | 13 | Deletion 15q11–q13 | 2 | Monosomy 18p |
| Trisomy 13q | 14 | monosomy 9q | 14 | Monosomy 9q | Trisomy 13q | ||
| 3 | Monosomy 21q | Trisomy 22q | Trisomy 22q | 3 | Monosomy 21q | ||
| Trisomy 9q | 15 | Deletion 1p | 15 | Deletion 1p | Trisomy 9q | ||
| 4 | Trisomy 17q | 16 | Monosomy 13q | 16 | Monosomy 13q | 4 | Trisomy 17q |
| Monosomy 12q | Trisomy 5q | Trisomy 5q | Monosomy 12q | ||||
| 5 | Monosomy 4q | 17 | Monosomy 13q | 17 | Monosomy 13q | 5 | Monosomy 4q |
| Trisomy 2q | Trisomy 2p | Trisomy 2p | Trisomy 2q | ||||
| 6 | Monosomy 6q | 18 | Normal | 6 | Monosomy 6q | ||
| Trisomy 6p | Trisomy 6p | ||||||
| 7 | deletion 15q24 | 7 | Deletion 15q24 | ||||
| 8 | Deletion 6p | 8 | Deletion 6p | ||||
| 9 | Deletion 22q11.2 | 9 | Deletion 22q11.2 | ||||
| 10 | Deletion 17p11 | 10 | Deletion 17p11 | ||||
| 18 | Normal | ||||||
Cases 1–10 were obtained from the by Karolinska Hospital, while cases 11–17 were contributed by the JF Kennedy Institute.
