Utility and performance of bacterial artificial chromosomes‐on‐beads assays in chromosome analysis of clinical prenatal samples, products of conception and blood samples

Abstract

Aim Chromosome analysis of prenatal samples and products of conception (POC) has conventionally been done by karyotyping (KT). Shortcomings of KT like high turnaround time and culture failure led to technology innovations, such as the bacterial artificial chromosomes (BAC)s‐on‐Beads (BoBs)‐based tests, Prenatal BoBs (prenatal samples) and KaryoLite BoBs (POC samples). In the present study, we validated and evaluated the utility of each test on prenatal, POC and blood samples. Methods Study A (n = 305; 259 prenatal + 46 blood/POC) and Study B (n = 176; 146 POC/chorionic vill + 30 blood/amniotic fluid) samples were analyzed using Prenatal and KaryoLite BoBs kits, respectively. KT, array‐based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (arrayCGH) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were used for comparison of results. Ability of KaryoLite BoBs to identify ring chromosomes was tested. Results Prenatal BoBs had zero test failure rate and results of all samples were concordant with KT results. Totally four microdeletions were identified by Prenatal BoBs but not by KT. In Study B, all but two POC samples (one triploid and one tetraploid) were concordant with KT and arrayCGH. Partial chromosomal imbalance detection rate was ~64% and KaryoLite BoBs indicated the presence of a ring chromosome in all four cases. The failure rate of KaryoLite BoBs was 3%. Conclusion We conclude that Prenatal BoBs (common aneuploidies and nine microdeletions) together with KT constitutes more comprehensive prenatal testing compared to FISH and KT. KaryoLite BoBs for aneuploidies of all chromosomes is highly successful in POC analysis and the ability to indicate presence of ring chromosomes improves its clinical sensitivity. Both tests are robust and could also be used for different specimens.