Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 23;35(8):1457–1472. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1187-4

Table 4.

WGA technique comparison

Sanger sequencing SNaPshot analysis STR analysis STR ADO (%) aCGH analysis Total embryos analyzed
HTT-case 7 MDA 4.5 2 MDA 7 MDA
ACTA2-case 4 MDA; 5 OmniPlex 4 MDA; 5 OmniPlex 1.5 3 MDA; 2 OmniPlex 4 MDA; 5 OmniPlex
TPP1-case 3 MDA 3 MDA 1.4 1 MDA 3 MDA
ALOX12B-case 12 MDA 12 MDA 12 MDA 2.8 2 MDA 12 MDA
DMD-case 1 9 OmniPlex 13.3 9 OmniPlex 9 OmniPlex
DMD-case 2 8 MDA; 9 OmniPlex 8 MDA; 9 OmniPlex 8 MDA; 9 OmniPlex 4.7 3 MDA; 5 OmniPlex 8 MDA; 9 OmniPlex
GLB1-case 5 MDA 5 MDA 2.0 5 MDA 5 MDA
WGA material donated for research 11 OmniPlex 11 OmniPlex 11 OmniPlex
MDA n = 32, ADO 10.0% n = 20, ADO 5.5% n = 39, clear electropherograms 2.98 n = 17, noisy profiles, resolution: full chromosomes, ~ 30% of samples have to be reanalyzed n = 39
OmniPlex n = 14, ADO 21.4% n = 20, failed reaction or inconsistent result for > 60% of cases n = 23, electropherograms overrepresented with stutter peaks 6.5 n = 27, clear profiles, resolution: ~ 5 Mb n = 34
Total 46 40 62 Average 4.74 44 73

All ADO rates were calculated by dividing homozygous genotypes when heterozygous (Hz) was expected to all expected Hz loci. ADO was counted if an alternative allele was completely absent or was indistinguishable from the artefact (partial ADO)

ADO allelic dropout