Array comparative genomic hybridisation on first polar bodies suggests that non-disjunction is not the predominant mechanism leading to aneuploidy in humans
IntroductionAneuploidy (the presence of extra or missing chromosomes) arises primarily through chromosome segregation errors in the oocyte at meiosis I but the details of mechanism by which such errors occur in humans are the subject of some debate. It is generally believed that aneuploidy arises pr...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of medical genetics Vol. 48; no. 7; pp. 433 - 437 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
01.07.2011
BMJ Publishing Group BMJ Publishing Group LTD |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | IntroductionAneuploidy (the presence of extra or missing chromosomes) arises primarily through chromosome segregation errors in the oocyte at meiosis I but the details of mechanism by which such errors occur in humans are the subject of some debate. It is generally believed that aneuploidy arises primarily as a result of segregation of a whole chromosome to the same pole as its homologue (non-disjunction). Nonetheless, classical cytogenetic studies suggest that this model does not fully account for the patterns observed in human oocytes. An alternative model (precocious separation of sister chromatids) has thus been proposed, but recurring criticism of this model purports that technical issues may have led to interpretation errors.Materials and methodsArray comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) was used on 164 human first polar bodies to distinguish between whole chromosome (non-disjunction) and chromatid (precocious separation) errors.ResultsSingle chromatid errors were over 11 times more common than whole chromosome errors, consistent with prior classical cytogenetic and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) studies.DiscussionThe received wisdom that non-disjunction is the primary mechanism leading to human aneuploidy should be reconsidered. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/NVC-5HX6MSR5-H href:jmedgenet-48-433.pdf PMID:21617258 istex:DD120F075B411F0DF056B66F76F6811CB20A73B2 local:jmedgenet;48/7/433 ArticleID:jmedgenet88070 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0022-2593 1468-6244 1468-6244 |
DOI: | 10.1136/jmg.2010.088070 |