| Title |
Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnostics: Recent Developments Using Circulating Fetal Nucleated Cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13669-019-0254-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pin-Jung Chen, Pai-Chi Teng, Yazhen Zhu, Yu Jen Jan, Matthew Smalley, Yalda Afshar, Li-Ching Chen, Margareta D. Pisarska, Hsian-Rong Tseng |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this review is to highlight recent research advances in noninvasive prenatal diagnostic methods. Recent studies developing noninvasive prenatal diagnostic (NIPD) methods have been focused on either fetal nucleated red blood cells (fNRBCs) or circulating trophoblasts (cTBs). Enriched cTBs were successfully utilized for whole genome profiling and short tandem repeat (STR) identification to confirm feto-maternal relationship. However, further analysis of isolated fNRBCs remains confined to examining fetal cytogenetics. Invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, are the gold standard for the diagnosis of fetal chromosomal abnormalities and genetic disorders. Meanwhile, noninvasive techniques of analyzing circulating cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) have been limited to screening tools and are highly fragmented and confounded by maternal DNA. By detecting circulating fetal nucleated cells (CFNCs) we are able to noninvasively confirm fetal chromosomal abnormalities, truly realizing the concept of "noninvasive prenatal diagnostics". The primary technical challenge is the enrichment of the low abundance of CFNCs in maternal peripheral blood. For any cell-based NIPD method, both fetal whole genome profiling and confirmation of the feto-parental relationship are essential. This has been successfully performed using enriched and isolated cTBs, making cTB a better candidate for NIPD. cTB enumeration also correlates with abnormal fetal or placental development. On the other hand, downstream analysis of fNRBCs remains limited to examining fetal sex and aneuploidies. Furthermore, trophoblast-based NIPD via an endocervical sample is also promising because of reduced dilution from hematologic cells. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 24% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2019.
All research outputs
#17,283,656
of 25,389,532 outputs
Outputs from Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports
#46
of 94 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,220
of 446,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,389,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 94 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them