Objective To evaluate the use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis, including assessment of variants of uncertain significance, and the ability to detect abnormalities not detected by karyotype, and vice versa. Methods Women undergoing amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) for karyotype were offered aCGH analysis using a targeted microarray. Parental samples were obtained concurrently to exclude maternal cell contamination and determine if copy number variants (CNVs) were de novo, or inherited prior to issuing a report. Results We analyzed 300 samples, most were amniotic fluid (82%) and CVS (17%). The most common indications were advanced maternal age (N = 123) and abnormal ultrasound findings (N = 84). We detected 58 CNVs (19.3%). Of these, 40 (13.3%) were interpreted as likely benign, 15 (5.0%) were of defined pathological significance, while 3 (1.0%) were of uncertain clinical significance. For seven (~2.3% or 1/43), aCGH contributed important new information. For two of these (1% or ~1/150), the abnormality would not have been detected without aCGH analysis. Conclusion Although aCGH-detected benign inherited variants in 13.3% of cases, these did not present major counseling difficulties, and the procedure is an improved diagnostic tool for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities.

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of using a targeted array-CGH strategy for prenatal diagnosis of genomic imbalances in a clinical setting of current pregnancies. Methods: Women undergoing prenatal diagnosis were counseled and offered array-CGH (BCM V4.0) in addition to routine chromosome analysis.Array-CGH was performed with DNA directly from amniotic fluid cells with whole genome amplification, on chorionic villus samples with amplification as necessary, and on cultured cells without amplification. Results: Ninety-eight pregnancies (56 amniotic fluid and 42 CVS specimens) were studied with complete concordance between karyotype and array results, including 5 positive cases with chromosomal abnormalities. There was complete concordance of array results for direct and cultured cell analysis in 57 cases tested by both methods. In 12 cases, the array detected copy number variation requiring testing of parental samples for optimal interpretation. Array-CGH results were available in an average of 6 and 16 days for direct and cultured cells, respectively. Patient acceptance of array-CGH testing was 74%. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using array-CGH for prenatal diagnosis, including reliance on direct analysis without culturing cells. Use of array-CGH should increase the detection of abnormalities relative to the risk, and is an option for an enhanced level of screening for chromosomal abnormalities in high risk pregnancies. Genet Med 2006:8(11):719-727.

De novo variants in DDX3X account for 1–3% of unexplained intellectual disability (ID) cases and are amongst the most common causes of ID especially in females. Forty‐seven patients (44 females, 3 males) have been described. We identified 31 additional individuals carrying 29 unique DDX3X variants, including 30 postnatal individuals with complex clinical presentations of developmental delay or ID, and one fetus with abnormal ultrasound findings. Rare or novel phenotypes observed include respiratory problems, congenital heart disease, skeletal muscle mitochondrial DNA depletion, and late‐onset neurologic decline. Our findings expand the spectrum of DNA variants and phenotypes associated with DDX3X disorders.

No abstract