1
|
Brothman AR, Schneider NR, Saikevych I, Cooley LD, Butler MG, Patil S, Mascarello JT, Rao KW, Dewald GW, Park JP, Persons DL, Wolff DJ, Vance GH. Cytogenetic Heteromorphisms: Survey Results and Reporting Practices of Giemsa-Band Regions That We Have Pondered for Years. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130:947-9. [PMID: 16831047 DOI: 10.5858/2006-130-947-chsrar] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Context.—Cytogenetic heteromorphisms (normal variants) pose diagnostic dilemmas. Common Giemsa-band heteromorphisms are not described in the literature, although Giemsa-banding is the method most frequently used in cytogenetic laboratories.
Objective.—To summarize the responses from more than 200 cytogeneticists concerning the definition and reporting of cytogenetic heteromorphisms, to offer these responses as a reference for use in clinical interpretations, and to provide guidance for interpretation of newly defined molecular cytogenetic heteromorphisms.
Design.—The Cytogenetics Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists and the American College of Medical Genetics administered a proficiency testing survey in 1997 to 226 participant cytogenetic laboratories. Supplemental questions asked whether participants considered particular Giemsa-banded chromosomal features to be heteromorphisms and if these would be described in a cytogenetic clinical report.
Results.—Responses were obtained from 99% of participants; 61% stated they would include selected heteromorphism data in a clinical report. More than 90% considered prominent short arms, large or double satellites, or increased stalk length on acrocentric chromosomes to be heteromorphisms; 24% to 36% stated that they would include these in a clinical report. Heterochromatic regions on chromosomes 1, 9, 16, and Y were considered heteromorphisms by 97% of participants, and 24% indicated they would report these findings. Pericentric inversions of chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 16, and Y were considered heteromorphisms with more than 75% of respondents indicating they would report these findings.
Conclusions.—Responses were not unanimous, but a clear consensus is presented describing which Giemsa-band regions were considered heteromorphisms and which would be reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arthur R Brothman
- Department of Pediatrics and Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jorge SM, Ribeiro VM, Ferrari I, Moreira LMA. Associação de retardo neuromotor e cromossomo 1qh +: registro de um caso. ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA 1976. [DOI: 10.1590/s0004-282x1976000400008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Os autores registram um caso de retardo neuromotor em paciente com cromossomo 1qh+. A análise cromossômica do paciente e três familiares revelou igualmente em todos, aumento do braço longo do cromossomo n.° 1. Entretanto, é considerada a possibilidade de que o quadro clínico do paciente seja subordinado também a outros fatores, não genéticos.
Collapse
|