We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Evaluation on the genetic instability detecting methods for rapid diagnose of Fanconi anemia used in the undeveloped areas of China.
International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 2018 December
INTRODUCTION: Fanconi anemia (FA), as one of the congenital bone marrow failure syndromes, is characterized by severe bone marrow hypocellularity and pancytopenia which is similar with acquired aplastic anemia (AAA). However, patients with FA or AAA need an accurate diagnose, as the two syndromes differ significantly in both treatment and prognosis. FA results from gene mutations of the FA pathway genes specifically required for DNA repair, and the mutation of these genes contributes to the genome instability of FA cells. Based on this feature, chromosome aberration (CA) has been used as a "golden standard" to the auxiliary diagnosis of FA from AAA. However, CA diagnose calls for more technical requirements and a long time for the subsequent statistical analysis.
METHODS: In our study, another two genome instability examination tools, cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) and single-cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE), were used to distinguish FA patients from AAA patients, compared with CA.
RESULTS: The results suggested that significant differences were observed in the FA patients compared with the AAA patients and the controls using all of the three genomic instability examination tools. However, CBMN is the most cost-effective method to distinguish FA patients from AAA patients among the three genome instability examination tools, when the time costs, instrument costs, and technical costs were compared.
CONCLUSION: In areas with economic and technical limitations, CBMN is an alternative assay to help distinguish FA patients from AAA patients.
METHODS: In our study, another two genome instability examination tools, cytokinesis-block micronucleus (CBMN) and single-cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE), were used to distinguish FA patients from AAA patients, compared with CA.
RESULTS: The results suggested that significant differences were observed in the FA patients compared with the AAA patients and the controls using all of the three genomic instability examination tools. However, CBMN is the most cost-effective method to distinguish FA patients from AAA patients among the three genome instability examination tools, when the time costs, instrument costs, and technical costs were compared.
CONCLUSION: In areas with economic and technical limitations, CBMN is an alternative assay to help distinguish FA patients from AAA patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app