<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJGen</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Genetics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-4453</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojgen.2023.132006</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJGen-125815</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Correlation between Reasons for Prescription and Karyotype Results in Patients Referred for Suspected Chromosomal Abnormalities
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Patricia Deh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Malika</surname><given-names>Joane Astrid Dieth</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Quidana</surname><given-names>Désirée Coulibaly</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mimbra</surname><given-names>Olivia Annick Bouatinin</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bi</surname><given-names>You Etienne Bazago Goulai</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abou</surname><given-names>Joël Landry Okon</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brahima</surname><given-names>Doukouré</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mohenou</surname><given-names>Isidore Jean-Marie Diomandé</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gnangoran</surname><given-names>Victor Yao</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Laboratory of Histology-Embryology-Cytogenetics, Training and Research Unit-Medical Sciences, Félix Houphou&amp;amp;euml;t-Boigny University, Abidjan, C&amp;amp;ocirc;te d’Ivoire</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Laboratory of Pathologycal Anatomy and Cytology, Training and Research Unit-Medical Sciences, Félix Houphou&amp;amp;euml;t-Boigny University, Abidjan, C&amp;amp;ocirc;te d’Ivoire</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Laboratory of Clinical Cytology and Reproductive Biology, Training and Research Unit-Medical Sciences, Alassane Ouattara University, Bouaké, C&amp;amp;ocirc;te d’Ivoire</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>23</day><month>05</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>97</fpage><lpage>103</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>24,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>27,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Karyotype prescription is based on clinical signs (or reasons for karyotype prescription) which are phenotypic manifestations associated with chromosomal abnormalities. The aim of this study was to establish a correspondence 
  between karyotype indications and their results in patients. This was a retrospective study that was carried out in the Histology-Embryology-Cytogenetics laboratory of the University Hospital of Cocody-Abidjan from 2014 to 2019. 58 patient files were identified and included the indication or reason for prescribing a constitutional karyotype and the biological result obtained. An individual data sheet was used to collect the data. 17 reasons for prescription were identified and divided into 2 groups. Sexual ambiguity was the most frequent reason (29.3%). The first group (G1) represented the 10 reasons for which the karyotype results were normal. The second group (G2) corresponded of the 7 motives with normal or abnormal karyotype results. Several anomalies were listed according to these reasons: inversions, mosaics (anomalies of number and structure) and trisomy 21. The last was the most frequent chromosomal anomaly (69.24%). It was found in several reasons for karyotype prescription: malformations, neurological disorders, suspected tri
  somy and cardiac pathology. Several factors could explain these results, among which are the limits of the karyotype and the non-genetic causes that can in
  duce these abnormal phenotypes. Complementary examinations to the karyotype are molecular cytogenetic techniques, notably fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic hybridization (Array-CGH).
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Diagnosis</kwd><kwd> Reasons for Prescription</kwd><kwd> Karyotype</kwd><kwd> Chromosomal Abnormalities</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The karyotype is the representation of all the chromosomes constituting the genetic heritage of an individual, the analysis of which aims to look for chromosomal abnormalities of number and structure [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref1">1</xref>] . These abnormalities have a birth prevalence rate of 43.8/10.000 in Europe [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref2">2</xref>] .</p><p>The reasons for prescribing the karyotype (or clinical signs) are abnormal phenotypes which are expressed at the level of the organism by physiological dysfunctions such as reproductive disorders, mental retardation or morphological anomalies, namely congenital malformations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref1">1</xref>] .</p><p>It was discovered in 1958, the link between a clinical syndrome with mental retardation and a chromosomal abnormality (trisomy 21) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Although techniques of cytogenetics have made it possible to relate phenotypic manifestations to chromosomal abnormalities, due to the variable expressivity of genetic disease, it is not easy to assess a prognosis. Indeed, Di George syndrome or 22q11.2 microdeletion (1/4000 births) is another example of a syndrome with high inter and even intrafamilial phenotypic variability despite the almost constant size of the microdeletion responsible for the syndrome [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>In the same order, the so-called balanced diseases, in which all the genes are present, but abnormally arranged such as reciprocal translocations, are not often accompanied by morphological abnormality in carriers but can be the cause of reproductive disorders [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>The objective of this work is to seek a possible correspondence between the reasons for prescription and the results of the karyotype in patients referred for chromosomal exploration to the laboratory of Histology-Embryology-Cytogenetics of the University Hospital of Cocody-Abidjan.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><p>During the retrospective study from January 2014 to December 2019 carried out in the Histology-Embryology-Cytogenetics laboratory of the University Hospital of Cocody-Abidjan (Republic of C&#244;te d’Ivoire), 58 patient files were identified (bulletins, reports) which included the indication or reason for prescribing a constitutional karyotype and the biological result obtained (normal karyotypes, abnormal karyotypes with anomalies number and structure). Files that did not include the reason for prescribing the karyotype were not retained. The karyotypes were performed abroad.</p><p>The anonymity and confidentiality of the results were respected.</p><p>The data collected on an individual technical sheet were presented in the form of averages and percentages using Excel 2010.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>The patients were grouped according to the reason for prescribing the karyotype.17 reasons for prescription of karyotype have been identified. Sexual ambiguity was the most common reason 17 (29.3%). Of 58 patients referred for chromosomal exploration, 45 (77.6%) patients had normal karyotypes and 13 (22.4%) cases had abnormal karyotypes.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Reasons for Prescription Presenting Normal Karyotype Results</title><p>Group 1 (G1): reasons for prescription for which the karyotype result was normal, they were 10 and represented 58.82% of the reasons for prescription (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Reasons for Prescribing the Karyotype Corresponding to a Normal or Abnormal Karyotype Then Associated Chromosomal Abnormalities</title><p>Group 2 (G2): motives whose karyotype results were normal or abnormal. Several abnormalities have been listed according to these reasons (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>In this work, it comes to establishing the correspondence between alteration of the phenotype and the results of the karyotype with the help of several clinical cases. Two groups of reasons for prescription have been identified.</p><p>Group 1 (G1) represented reasons that had given normal karyotype results (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). In these cases, the diagnosis of suspected chromosomal abnormalities of the referred patients was not confirmed.</p><p>Several reasons could explain these results, among which are the limits of the classic karyotype and the non-genetic causes that can induce these abnormal phenotypes (or prescription reasons).</p><p>Indeed, the karyotypes analyzed in this study were classic or constitutional karyotypes whose cytogenetic analysis has different constraints. It is impossible to access chromosomal rearrangements of small sizes inferior to 5 megabases (Mb) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>Besides that, there are non-genetic factors that can induce abnormal phenotypes such as environmental (ionizing radiation, tobacco smoke and chemical production plants), endocrinological and anatomical factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref8">8</xref>] . In addition, advanced maternal age at conception (over 35 years) is associated with a type of congenital malformation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref12">12</xref>] .</p><p>Group 2 (G2) corresponded to reasons with normal or abnormal karyotype results. Associated chromosomal abnormalities were trisomy 21, inversions and mosaics which made up of number and structure anomalies. Trisomy 21 or Down syndrome that is the dominant anomaly was found in several indications,</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Reasons for prescription presenting normal karyotype results (G1)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Motives</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Results of karyotypes</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of karyotype cases</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sexual ambiguity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cardiac pathology</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Early neonatal death</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Repeated spontaneous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Miscarriage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46, XX: normal female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hypogonadism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46, XY: normal male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Congenital adrenal gland hypertrophy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary amenorrhea</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gynecomastia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Repeating clear egg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leukemia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Reasons for prescribing the karyotype corresponding to a normal or abnormal karyotype (G2)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Motives</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Karyotype results</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Number of karyotype cases</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Hypospadias</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Mosaic: 46 X del (Y) (p11.2q11.23) [45.5%]/45, X [54.5%]</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Deformities</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Inversion: 46, XX, inv (9) Mosaic: 45, XY, −10 [7%]/46, XY, r(10) (p15.3q26.3) [93%] Trisomy: 47, XY, +21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Neurological disorders</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Trisomy: 47, XY, +21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Neurological disorders and malformations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Trisomy: 47, XY, +21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Pubertal delay</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Inversion: 46, XY, inv (9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Suspicion of trisomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Trisomy: 47, XY, +21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Suspicion of trisomy and cardiac pathology</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal Trisomy: 47, XY, +21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >29</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>and these are malformations, neurological disorders, suspected trisomy and cardiac pathology.</p><p>There is phenotype variability for all chromosomal abnormalities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref13">13</xref>] . Several authors have emphasized that the phenotypic variability of Down’s syndrome concerns many clinical signs of the disease, namely the importance of intellectual retardation, the inconstant presence of cardiopathy, or of a single transverse palmar crease, very early in the course of the development [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>To explain this variability and the fact that some of the phenotypic traits of trisomy 21 exist in the general population (the unique transverse palmar crease for example) or in other trisomies, hypotheses have been reported. According to Rachidi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref16">16</xref>] , it’s possible that a single gene cannot cause all of the phenotypic characteristics associated with trisomy 21, rather it is more evident that many other developmental genes located on other chromosomes have a role to play in this phenomenon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>Other authors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref19">19</xref>] identified 3 groups of genes. Those always overexpressed, are probably involved in the constant phenotypic traits of Down syndrome like mental retardation, hypotonia or early Alzheimer’s. Then, the genes with a variable level of expression could be responsible for the phenotypic variability of patients with Down syndrome, and those whose expression is identical in patients with Down syndrome and healthy patients.</p><p>The above data show the complexity of the genetic mechanisms that can be at the origin of a phenotype and its variability.</p><p>Nowadays, the resolution in cytogenetics has reached the level of the gene, making it possible to refine the genotype/phenotype correlations and therefore to improve the genetic counseling of chromosomal diseases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Thus, the practitioner will have to prescribe for G1 and G2, complementary examinations to the constitutional karyotype. These are the molecular techniques of cytogenetics including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic hybridization (Array-CGH). Using these molecular techniques [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125815-ref20">20</xref>] , it is thus possible to highlight chromosomal rearrangements of size less than 5 Mb, unnoticed on the karyotype.</p><p>This work shows the interest of the karyotype and the contribution of various molecular cytogenetic techniques for the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Indeed, of the total of 58 patients suspected of having chromosomal aberrations and sent to the laboratory, only 22.4% had a chromosomal abnormality.</p><p>Apart from chromosomal abnormalities, these clinical signs may be caused by non-genetic factors.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusions</title><p>The reasons for prescribing the karyotype are clinical references which may be due to environmental, endocrinological, anatomical factors, and related to maternal age alongside genetic causes.</p><p>The karyotype is a first-line examination to look for number or structure abnormalities. But in case of a phenotype suggestive of chromosomal anomalies and the absence of abnormal karyotypes in patients referred, it is necessary to resort to other high-resolution cytogenetic techniques, in particular fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and Array comparative genomic hybridization (Array-CGH).</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>ZPD and MJAD contributed to acquisition of results and their interpretation. QDC, MOAB, BYEB, AJLO, BD, MIJMD and GVY revised critically for important intellectual content.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Deh, Z.P., Dieth, M.J.A., Coulibaly, Q.D., Bouatinin, M.O.A., Goulai, B.Y.E.B., Okon, A.J.L., Doukour&#233;, B., Diomand&#233;, M.I.J.-M. and Yao, G.V. (2023) Correlation between Reasons for Prescription and Karyotype Results in Patients Referred for Suspected Chromosomal Abnormalities. Open Journal of Genetics, 13, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojgen.2023.132006</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.125815-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dimassi, S.M. and Sanlaville, T.D. (2017) Chromosomal Abnormalities. Journal of Pediatrics Childcare, 30, 49-70.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wellesley, D., et al. (2012) Rare Chromosome Abnormalities, Prevalence and Prenatal Diagnosis Rates from Population-Based Congenital Anomaly Registers in Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20, 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.246</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ataman, A.D., Vatanoglu-Lutz, E.E. and Gazi, Y.G. (2012) Medicine in Stamps: History of Down syndrome through Philately. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 13, 267-269. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2012.43</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kruszka, P., et al. (2017) 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome in Diverse Populations. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 173, 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38199</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vincent, M.C., et al. (2002) Cytogenetic Investigations of Infertile Men with Low Sperm Counts: A 25 Year Experience. Journal of Andrology, 23, 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02597.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, S., Song, L., Cram, D.S., Xiong, L., Wang, K., Wu, R., Liu, J., Deng, K., Jia, B., Zhong, M. and Yang, F. (2015) Traditional Karyotyping vs Copy Number Variation Sequencing for Detection of Chromosomal Abnormalities Associated with Spontaneous Miscarriage. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 46, 72-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14849</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hao, M.Z., Li, L., Zhang, H., Li, L., Liu, R. and Yu, Y. (2020) The Difference between Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray for Mosaicism of Aneuploid Chromosomes in Prenatal Diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 34, e23514. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23514</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Han, B., et al. (2020) Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors Associated with the Phenotype of Exceptional Longevity and Normal Cognition. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 19140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75446-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Loane, M., Dolk, H. and Morris, J.K. (2009) Maternal Age-Specific of Non-Chromosomal Anomalies. BJOG, 116, 1111-1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02227.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Johnson, J.A. and Tough, S. (2016) Postponing Pregnancy. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer, 38, 1-17.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peng, J., et al. (2019) The Non-Genetic Paternal Factors for Congenital Heart Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Cardiology, 2, 684-691. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23194</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lee, K.S., et al. (2021) Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors of Congenital Anomalies: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36, e183.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Harel, T. and Lupski, J.R. (2018) Genomic Disorders 20 Years on—Mechanisms for Clinical Manifestations. Clinical Genetics, 93, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13146</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Antonaros, F., et al. (2021) The Transcriptome Profile of Human Trisomy 21 Blood Cells. Human Genomics, 15, Article No. 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-021-00325-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chen, X.Q., et al. (2021) Mechanistic Analysis of Age-Related Clinical Manifestations in Down syndrome. Frontiers Aging in Neurosciences, 13, Article 700280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.700280</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rachidi, M. and Lopes, C. (2007) Mental Retardation in Down syndrome: From Gene Dosage Imbalance to Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms. Neuroscience Research. 59, 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2007.08.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prandini, P., et al. (2007) Natural Gene-Expression Variation in Down syndrome Modulates the Outcome of Gene-Dosage Imbalance. American Journal of Human Genetics, 81, 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1086/519248</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pelleri, M.C., et al. (2018) Integrated Quantitative Maps of the Transcriptome of Human Trisomy 21 Tissues and Cells. Frontier Genetics, 9, Article 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rosenfeld, J.A. and Patel, A. (2017) Chromosomal Microarrays: Understanding Genetics of Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Congenital Anomalies. The Journal of Pediatric Genetics, 6, 42-50.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125815-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Emanuel, P.O., et al. (2018) Evidence Behindthe Use of Molecular Tests in Melanocytic Lesions and Practice Patterns of These Tests by Dermatopathologists. Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 45, 839-884. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13327</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>