Application of Array-Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization to Clinical Diagnostics
Open accessAbstract
Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) is a revolutionary platform that was recently adopted in the clinical laboratory. This technology was first developed as a research tool for the investigation of genomic alterations in cancer. It allows for a high-resolution evaluation of DNA copy number alterations associated with chromosome abnormalities. Array CGH is based on the use of differentially labeled test and reference genomic DNA samples that are simultaneously hybridized to DNA targets arrayed on a glass slide or other solid platform. In this review, we examine the technology and its transformation from a research tool into a maturing diagnostic instrument. We also evaluate the various approaches that have shaped the current platforms that are used for clinical applications. Finally, we discuss the advantages and shortcomings of "whole-genome" arrays and compare their diagnostic use to "targeted" arrays. Depending on their design, microarrays provide distinct advantages over conventional cytogenetic analysis because they have the potential to detect the majority of microscopic and submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities. This new platform is poised to revolutionize modern cytogenetic diagnostics and to provide clinicians with a powerful tool to use in their increasingly sophisticated diagnostic capabilities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 173
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bruder CE, Hirvela C, Tapia-Paez I, Fransson I, Segraves R, Hamilton 532 Bejjani and Shaffer JMD November 2006, Vol. 8, No.
- Authors
- Bejjani, B. A., & Shaffer, L. G.
- Corresponding author
- Bejjani, Bassem A.
- ORCID
- Shaffer, Lisa G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 528-533
- ISSN
- 1525-1578 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1876176
- OpenAlex
- W1969496555
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 2.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Molecular Diagnostics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genome Rearrangement Algorithms
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Keywords
- array comparative genomic hybridization, clinical diagnostics, DNA copy number alterations, chromosomal abnormalities, cytogenetic analysis, cancer genomics, microarray platforms
- MeSH terms
- Chromosome Aberrations, Humans, Nucleic Acid Hybridization, Genome, Human, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Chromosome Disorders, Chromosomes, Human, X
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review