Cytogenomic Arrays in Postnatal Diagnostics: Advances and Applications

Wyatt Carter^*
*Correspondence: Wyatt Carter, Department of Hematology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA, Email:

Introduction

The evolution of cytogenomic arrays can be traced back to the development of karyotyping and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH), which laid the groundwork for modern cytogenetic techniques. Karyotyping, introduced in the mid-20^th century, allowed for the visualization of chromosomes and the identification of large chromosomal abnormalities. However, its resolution was limited. FISH, developed in the 1980s, improved the ability to detect specific genetic changes but was still constrained by the need for prior knowledge of the target regions. The advent of array-based technologies in the early 2000s marked a significant leap forward, offering genome-wide analysis without prior assumptions [1].

Description

Technological advances

Microarray Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH): One of the earliest and most widely used cytogenomic array technologies, aCGH involves the hybridization of patient DNA and reference DNA to a microarray chip containing thousands of probes. This technique allows for the detection of CNVs across the entire genome, providing high-resolution data on genetic imbalances [2].

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) arrays: SNP arrays analyze variations at single nucleotide positions, offering insights into both CNVs and regions of homozygosity, which can indicate uniparental disomy or consanguinity. SNP arrays have the advantage of higher resolution and the ability to detect smaller genetic changes compared to aCGH.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based arrays: The integration of NGS with cytogenomic arrays has further enhanced their diagnostic capabilities. NGS-based arrays allow for the simultaneous analysis of CNVs, single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and structural variants, providing a more comprehensive genomic profile [3].

Clinical applications

Developmental and intellectual disabilities: Cytogenomic arrays are particularly valuable in the diagnosis of developmental and intellectual disabilities. They can identify microdeletions and microduplications associated with conditions such as DiGeorge syndrome, Williams syndrome and Angelman syndrome, among others.

Congenital anomalies: Many congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, cleft lip and palate and skeletal malformations, have a genetic basis. Cytogenomic arrays facilitate the detection of the underlying genetic causes, enabling accurate diagnosis and guiding management and counseling.

Neurodevelopmental disorders: Disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often have a genetic component. Cytogenomic arrays can identify CNVs associated with these conditions, aiding in early diagnosis and intervention.

Unexplained clinical presentations: In cases where patients present with complex or unexplained clinical features, cytogenomic arrays provide a comprehensive genomic assessment that can reveal previously undetected genetic abnormalities, leading to a more accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment plans [4].

Advantages and limitations

Advantages

High resolution: Cytogenomic arrays offer higher resolution compared to traditional karyotyping and FISH, allowing for the detection of smaller genetic changes.

Genome-Wide analysis: These arrays enable the analysis of the entire genome, providing a comprehensive assessment without the need for prior assumptions about the target regions.

Clinical utility: The ability to detect a wide range of genetic abnormalities makes cytogenomic arrays a valuable tool in clinical diagnostics, particularly for complex or unexplained conditions.

Limitations

Incidental findings: The genome-wide nature of cytogenomic arrays can lead to the identification of incidental findings, which may pose ethical and counseling challenges.

Interpretation challenges: The clinical significance of certain CNVs can be uncertain, requiring careful interpretation and correlation with clinical findings and family history.

Cost and accessibility: Despite their advantages, the cost of cytogenomic arrays and the need for specialized equipment and expertise may limit their accessibility in some settings.

The field of cytogenomic arrays is rapidly evolving, with ongoing advancements aimed at increasing their diagnostic yield and clinical utility. Integration with other genomic technologies, such as whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and transcriptome analysis, is expected to provide even more comprehensive insights into genetic disorders. Additionally, improvements in data interpretation tools and the development of guidelines for the management of incidental findings will enhance the clinical application of cytogenomic arrays.

Conclusion

Cytogenomic arrays have become an indispensable tool in postnatal diagnostics, offering high-resolution, genome-wide analysis of genetic abnormalities. Their applications in diagnosing developmental and intellectual disabilities, congenital anomalies, neurodevelopmental disorders and other conditions have transformed clinical practice, enabling more accurate diagnoses and personalized treatment plans. As technological advancements continue, cytogenomic arrays will play an increasingly vital role in the field of genomics and personalized medicine, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes [5].

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Jagannathan-Bogdan, Madhumita and Leonard I. Zon. "Hematopoiesis." Development 140 (2013): 2463-2467.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. de Haan, Gerald and Seka Simone Lazare. "Aging of hematopoietic stem cells." Blood 131 (2018): 479-487.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Mendez, Lourdes M. and Mrinal M. Patnaik. "Clonal hematopoiesis: Origins and determinants of evolution." Leuk Res 129 (2023): 107076.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Allen, R. Cutler, Huda Y. Zoghbi, Annemarie B Moseley and H.M. Rosenblatt, et al. "Methylation of HpaII and HhaI sites near the polymorphic CAG repeat in the human androgen-receptor gene correlates with X chromosome inactivation." Am J Hum Genet 51 (1992): 1229.

   Google Scholar, Indexed at

5. Gale, Rosemary E., Helen Wheadon, Paul Boulos and David C. Linch, et al. "Tissue specificity of X-chromosome inactivation patterns." Blood (1994): 2899-2905.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at