Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Karyotype analysis”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Karyotype analysis, banding, and fluorescent in situ hybridization in the scarab beetle Gymnopleurus sturmi McLeay (Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea : Scarabaeidae).

Conventional staining, differential banding, and in situ hybridization with both ribosomal and telomeric probes to mitotic chromosomes of Gymnopleurus sturmi (Scarabaeoidea : Scarabaeidae) are described. The karyotype is distinguished by a pericentric inversion polymorphism in chromosome 3, which is either acrocentric or subtelocentric. Silver staining (Ag-NOR) and chromomycin A3 (CMA3), failed to study the detection of nucleolar organizer regions (NORs), due to the extensive silver and CMA3 stainability of all GC-rich heterochromatin. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using a Paracentrotus lividus (Echinodermata) rDNA probe mapped the ribosomal RNA genes (rDNA). FISH with the all-human telomeric sequences (TTAGGG)n revealed a lack of homology between the telomeric probe and the telomeres of G. sturmi. This suggests that the telomeric hesanucleotide (TTAGGG)n is not so conserved within eukaryotes as it has been hypothesized.

Animals↗
PubMed1975

[Karyotype analysis of 2 species of gibbons (Hylobates lar and H. concolor) with different banding species].

The mitotic chromosomes of two species of gibbons (Hylobates lar and H. concolor) are examined and compared, using various banding techniques. These two species have very different karyotypes. At the most, seven pairs of chromosomes have a similar banding pattern. The other elements generally differ by complex structrual rearrangements. Thus, it is difficult to propose a scheme for chromosomal evolution at this stage. Comparison with the karyotypes of man and anthropoid apes also shows very important differences; very few chromosomes are common or only slightly modified. Some considerations about the hypothetical origin of particular chromosomal structures are given.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

Karyotypic analysis of 32 malignant epithelial ovarian tumors.

The identification of recurrent specific cytogenetic findings in various malignancies has provided an improved means to diagnose and treat patients. To date, no characteristic markers have been found for epithelial ovarian cancer. This is due, in part, to several contributory factors, including the inability to identify optimal growth conditions for culture and the fact that most analyses of advanced-stage tumors are obtained from malignant effusions rather than from solid tissue. In addition, many reports include previously treated patients. In this study, 32 untreated solid epithelial ovarian tumors, including 8 tumors of low malignant potential (LMP), were obtained from primary and metastatic sites at initial surgical staging. Using a 2-culture plastic technique for tissue growth, we achieved a 96% short-term culture success rate. Only 4 normal 46,XX karyotypes were identified. Diploid or near-diploid genomes were associated with few cytogenetic alterations. Complex karyotypic morphologies were consistently associated with advanced or poorly differentiated tumors. Nonrandom cytogenetic aberrations most commonly involved chromosomes 1 and 6. A novel translocation, t(1;6)(p10;p10), was identified in both a metastatic LMP tumor and a poorly differentiated invasive tumor. This cytogenetic rearrangement can potentially be regarded as a clinically relevant early marker for tumorogenesis. Finally, karyotypes from both primary and metastatic sites were subject to a comparative analysis in 11 patients. In 4 cases, greater chromosomal complexity was associated with the primary site.

Carcinoma↗