Is routine karyotyping required in prenatal samples with a molecular or metabolic referral?

"Classical cytogenetics" is not equal to "banding cytogenetics"

BACKGROUND

Human cytogenetics is a field suffering from the argumentation that it 'is nowadays really outdated and to be replaced by molecular high throughput approaches'. Thus, it is to be expected that non-cytogeneticists do mistakes in nomenclature of cytogenetics, which is exposed to repeated reforms, like e.g. recently the now hardly manageable and readable nomenclature for array-comparative genomic hybridization.

RESULTS

An unexpected nomenclature problem becomes more and more obvious in human cytogenetics - it seems to become difficult to understand how and when to use the designations "classical cytogenetics" or "banding cytogenetics". Here it is highlighted that "classical cytogenetics" stands for studies undertaken by Orcein or Giemsa staining without (!) previous trypsin-treatment. However, in human (diagnostic) cytogenetics almost exclusively "banding cytogenetics" is applied.

CONCLUSION

The terms "classical cytogenetics" and "banding cytogenetics" have to be clearly distinguished and correctly applied.