English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

PurposeTo compare the frequency of copy-number variants (CNVs) of variable penetrance in low-risk and high-risk prenatal samples and postnatal samples.MethodsTwo cohorts were categorized according to chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) indication: group I, low-risk prenatal-women with uneventful pregnancy (control group); group II, high-risk prenatal-women whose fetuses had congenital malformations; and group III, postnatal-individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, or multiple congenital anomalies. CNVs were categorized based on clinical penetrance: (i) high (&gt;40%), (ii) moderate (10-40%), and (iii) low (&lt;10%).ResultsFrom 2013 to 2016, 21,594 CMAs were performed. The frequency of high-penetrance CNVs was 0.1% (21/15,215) in group I, 0.9% (26/2,791) in group II, and 2.6% (92/3,588) in group III. Moderate-penetrance CNV frequency was 0.3% (47/15,215), 0.6% (19/2,791), and 1.2% (46/3,588), respectively. These differences were statistically significant. The frequency of low-penetrance CNVs was not significantly different among groups: 0.6% (85/15,215), 0.9% (25/2,791), and 1.0% (35/3,588), respectively.ConclusionHigh-penetrance CNVs might be a major factor in the overall heritability of developmental, intellectual, and structural anomalies. Low-penetrance CNV alone does not seem to contribute to these anomalies. These data may assist pre- and posttest CMA counseling.

When genotype is not predictive of phenotype: implications for genetic counseling based on 21,594 chromosomal microarray analysis examinations