|
1. Mathews, T.J. and M.F. MacDorman. Infant mortality statistics from the 2003 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2006. 54(16): p. 1-29.
2. Canfield, M.A., et al. National estimates and race/ethnic-specific variation of selected birth defects in the United States, 1999-2001. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol, 2006. 76(11): p. 747-56.
3. Hassold, T., et al. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions. Ann Hum Genet, 1980. 44(Pt 2): p. 151-78.
4. Mansfield, E.S., Diagnosis of Down syndrome and other aneuploidies using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and small tandem repeat polymorphisms. Hum Mol Genet, 1993. 2(1): p. 43-50.
5. Schouten, J.P., et al. Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res, 2002. 30(12): p. e57.
6. Slater, H.R., et al. Rapid, high throughput prenatal detection of aneuploidy using a novel quantitative method (MLPA). J Med Genet 2003. 40(12): p. 907-12.
7. Gerdes, T., et al. Computer-assisted prenatal aneuploidy screening for chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y based on multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Eur J Hum Genet, 2005. 13(2): p. 171-5.
8. Hochstenbach, R., et al. Rapid detection of chromosomal aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). Prenat Diagn, 2005. 25(11): p. 1032-9.
9. Amati, F., et al., Atypical deletions suggest five 22q11.2 critical regions related to the DiGeorge/velo-cardio-facial syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet 1999. 7(8): p. 903-9.
10. Kallioniemi, A., et al. Comparative genomic hybridization for molecular cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors. Science 1992. 258(5083): p. 818-21.
11. Kirchhoff, M., et al. Deletions below 10 megabasepairs are detected in comparative genomic hybridization by standard reference intervals. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1999. 25(4): p. 410-3.
12. Kirchhoff, M., et al. Detection of chromosomal gains and losses in comparative genomic hybridization analysis based on standard reference intervals. Cytometry 1998. 31(3): p. 163-73.
13. Lichter, P., et al. Comparative genomic hybridization: uses and limitations. Semin Hematol 2000. 37(4): p. 348-57.
14. Speicher, M.R., et al. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded solid tumors by comparative genomic hybridization after universal DNA-amplification. Hum Mol Genet 1993. 2(11): p. 1907-14.
15. Pinkel, D., et al. High resolution analysis of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays. Nat Genet, 1998. 20(2): p. 207-11.
16. Solinas-Toldo, S., et al., Matrix-based comparative genomic hybridization: biochips to screen for genomic imbalances. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1997. 20(4): p. 399-407.
17. Lu, X.Y., et al., Genomic imbalances in neonates with birth defects: high detection rates by using chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatrics 2008. 122(6): p. 1310-8.
18. Van den Veyver, I.B., et al. Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenat Diagn 2008.
|