ライフサイエンスコーパス: genomic hybridization

1 gions of genomic loss with array comparative genomic hybridization.

2 ependent probe amplification and comparative genomic hybridization.

3 uestion using yeast genetics and comparative genomic hybridization.

4 mber changes identified by array comparative genomic hybridization.

5 ere further analysed using array comparative genomic hybridization.

6 n an area of gain as measured by comparative genomic hybridization.

7 n data obtained from array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

8 human chromosomes 14-18 by array comparative genomic hybridization.

9 copy number assessment by array comparative genomic hybridization.

10 ed with the application of array comparative genomic hybridization.

11 high-resolution chromosome-wide comparative genomic hybridization.

12 with the use of oligonucleotide comparative genomic hybridization.

13 nt rearrangement, by array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

14 ybridization and BAC-based array comparative genomic hybridization.

15 s of serotypes 6A, 6B, and 14 by comparative genomic hybridization.

16 demiological associations, using comparative genomic hybridization.

17 dentified with genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization.

18 oradic EOAD trios first by array-comparative genomic hybridization.

19 NAs) were defined by using array comparative genomic hybridization.

20 variants were detected by array comparative genomic hybridization.

21 for rare CNVs>300 kb using array comparative genomic hybridization.

22 e identified through array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

23 de copy number analysis by array comparative genomic hybridization.

24 nital abnormalities, using array comparative genomic hybridization.

25 ession profiling and array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

26 alyzed, by high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization, 316 children with sporadic, nonsy

27 As detected by array comparative genomic hybridization, about one-third of marker chromos

28 In this study, array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) (n = 10) detected a common

29 ndrome using Agilent 185 k array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and Affymetrix 6.0 genotypi

30 comparison with microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and digital PCR.

31 rofiles were studied using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and expression profiling.

32 a role in this phenomenon, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and metaphase karyotyping w

33 s complemented with custom array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq

34 alls, 82 were subjected to array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and/or breakpoint PCR and 6

35 atellited SMCs analyzed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and/or fluorescence in situ

36 easing resolution of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) arrays, more and more raw c

37 of gene transcription and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) between melanoma cells from

38 d a custom oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) covering 20 genes that enco

39 ful normalization of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) data is of critical importa

40 A copy numbers assessed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) data.

41 gene-centric high-density array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) has revolutionized the dete

42 ate the diagnostic rate of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in the setting of global de

43 We performed array-Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) on 83 different S. cerevisi

44 ed a high-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) platform that targeted know

45 ve designed a custom array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) platform with 385 000 oligo

46 ithm for mapping CNVs from array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) platforms comprised of 385

47 u hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) suffer from low resolution.

48 we retrospectively applied array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to 20 malignant melanomas t

49 progression, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to compare genomic profiles

50 describe the use of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to identify copy number alt

51 We used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to identify rare CNVs in 12

52 alterations, we performed array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to investigate copy number

53 , we use genome-wide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to profile differential DNA

54 application of cDNA array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to survey gene duplications

55 nd 372 control subjects by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) using a 19K whole-genome ti

56 Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) was performed on 20 LMS sam

57 Oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) was performed on 42 microdi

58 bp) was designed and array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) was performed on all 11 idi

59 Recently, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) was used for sSMC character

60 geneic ones and correlated array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) with gene expression profil

61 Cytogenetic analysis, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and exome sequencing were

62 or deletions by using PCR, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and FISH.

63 cal integration with array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), as well as expression data

64 DNA sequencing/mapping and array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), do not identify the bounda

65 omic technologies, such as array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), increasingly offer definit

66 ctal cancer-derived CTC by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), mutational profiling, and

67 high-resolution microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), of which 24 were subjected

68 situ hybridization (FISH), array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), or whole-genome SNP genoty

69 ce-based CNV call set with array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), quantitative PCR (qPCR), a

70 m wider use of genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), specific insights gained f

71 can be identified by array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), the most commonly used tec

72 rerio) T-ALL samples using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

73 oendocrine tumors based on array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

74 , identified by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

75 cancers using tiling-path array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

76 ese CNVs were validated by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

77 e copy number analysis via array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH).

78 sment of the TOP1 locus by array comparative genomic hybridization across the NCI-60 showed copy numb

79 Array genomic hybridization (AGH) provides a higher detection

80 of tumor cells followed by array comparative genomic hybridization allows for high definition global

81 Array comparative genomic hybridization also identified recurrent focal co

82 (ChIP-chip), and high resolution comparative genomic hybridization, among other uses.

83 Comparative genomic hybridization analyses of 41 strains indicate th

84 chain reaction, immunoblot, and comparative genomic hybridization analyses were performed using norm

85 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis after laser capture micro

86 mbocytopenia have clinical array-comparative genomic hybridization analysis and appropriate cytogenet

87 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis demonstrated that the tra

88 hromosomal aberrations and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis identified numerous genom

89 Comparative genomic hybridization analysis indicated that single-cop

90 Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of one case demonstrated

91 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis showed that both siblings

92 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis was performed on biopsy s

93 To characterize these events, comparative genomic hybridization analysis was performed, using a si

94 Comparative genomic hybridization analysis with two PM1-like MTBE-de

95 CGH, a comprehensive array-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis workflow, integrating com

96 disabilities by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis.

97 organism (direct or indirect competition) or genomic (hybridization and introgression) levels [3-5].

98 ubjects by high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization and breakpoint junction sequencing

99 in-coding genes in mammals using comparative genomic hybridization and expression array measurements

100 BAC-array comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridiza

101 A novel application of array comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridiza

102 by safety margins, we used array comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescent in situ hybridizat

103 Comparative genomic hybridization and genome sequencing of strain 25

104 each metastasis were analyzed by comparative genomic hybridization and global transcript analysis.

105 t scanning technologies, such as comparative genomic hybridization and high-density single nucleotide

106 mental retardation by BAC array comparative genomic hybridization and identified 16 pathogenic rearr

107 p31-36, according to array-based comparative genomic hybridization and karyotyping.

108 ient outcome analysis with array comparative genomic hybridization and mRNA expression profiling was

109 Comparative genomic hybridization and PCR screening showed that the

110 Subsequent comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative polymerase chain

111 ng whole exome sequencing, array comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative polymerase chain

112 By both oligonucleotide-based comparative genomic hybridization and recombination hot spot analyse

113 children with T-ALL using array comparative genomic hybridization and sequence analysis.

114 enesis, we used microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization and single nucleotide polymorphism

115 rial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization and single nucleotide polymorphism

116 Whole genome scanning using comparative genomic hybridization and single nucleotide polymorphism

117 We used genome-wide tiling comparative genomic hybridization and single nucleotide polymorphism

118 including oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization and SNP genotyping arrays, as well

119 Array comparative genomic hybridization and spectral karyotype analysis re

120 rom high-resolution, array-based comparative genomic hybridization and transcriptome analysis of HCC

121 de polymorphism arrays and array comparative genomic hybridization, and can reliably detect gains or

122 n of spectral karyotyping, array comparative genomic hybridization, and cDNA microarrays to gain insi

123 e genome clustering of data from comparative genomic hybridization, and indicated specialization acco

124 n of somatic cell hybrids, array comparative genomic hybridization, and the specificity of next-gener

125 We identified by array comparative genomic hybridization, and validated by quantitative rea

126 two-stage high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization approach to analyse 50 healthy Cau

127 g a high-resolution, array-based comparative genomic hybridization approach to unravel the genetic me

128 Comparative genomic hybridization array (aCGH) showed that the three

129 Comparative genomic hybridization array analysis revealed prominent

130 ning of telomeres with data from comparative genomic hybridization array studies, as well as with cli

131 idization (FISH) analysis, and a comparative genomic hybridization array were used in one family to a

132 Comparative genomic hybridization array, SCN1A testing and genetic t

133 Using a strain-specific comparative genomic hybridization array, we report the identificatio

134 As judged by array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) and spectral karyotype

135 horesis (PFGE), and public array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) data, we show that the

136 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) is a highly efficient

137 evel, we carried out array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) on 64 prostate tumor s

138 We used high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) to map the minimal amp

139 esolution, tiling path BAC array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) was employed to test D

140 n found in CR tumors using array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH), gene expression array

141 domesticated cattle using array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH), quantitative PCR (qPC

142 s previously identified by array-comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH).

143 STs), we carried out array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) and detected significa

144 NVs, ultra-high resolution array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) assays were performed

145 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) has emerged as a techn

146 rearrangements, and array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) is a popular technolog

147 High-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization (arrayCGH) and fluorescence in sit

148 ide, high-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization (arrayCGH) and immunohistochemistr

149 gene expression and array-based comparative genomic hybridization (arrayCGH) data using biological k

150 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (arrayCGH) is a microarray-based c

151 Array comparative genomic hybridization (arrayCGH) is widely used to measu

152 We performed comparative genomic hybridization arrays and targeted gene sequencin

153 A combination of SNP arrays, comparative genomic hybridization arrays, and whole-exome sequencing

154 were further tested using custom comparative genomic hybridization arrays.

155 and duplication testing through comparative genomic hybridization arrays.

156 were further confirmed by custom comparative genomic hybridization arrays.

157 in situ hybridization and array comparative genomic hybridization as well as large-insert whole-geno

158 xome sequencing (n=66) and array comparative genomic hybridization-based copy-number analysis (n=80)

159 By comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analyses of embryos deficien

160 Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analyses of microdissected b

161 ylation, microRNA expression and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis in human adrenocort

162 A comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis of 35 of the 67 C.

163 73, microarrays were utilized in comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis of a panel of uropa

164 gingivalis, and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis was used to more co

165 Using array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis, we have detected s

166 ding iGluR3) by using an X-array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and four missense variants (

167 ic profiling of CTCs using array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and next-generation sequenci

168 gh whole-exome sequencing, array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and RNA transcript profiling

169 anagement Program (CAMP) using a competitive genomic hybridization (CGH) array designed to interrogat

170 ho wish to use genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) assays for clinical diagnost

171 n of DNA copy numbers from array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) data is important for charac

172 em of clustering a population of Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) data samples using similarit

173 multiple types of cancers using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) data.

174 We used a public array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) database and real-time quant

175 Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) demonstrated reproducible ch

176 al cancer cell lines using array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) for copy number changes and

177 Genetic testing by array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) for DGS was required because

178 Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has been developed as a usef

179 Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has been useful in understan

180 rt of children who had undergone comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) microarray analysis for clin

181 s goal, we performed array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) on 86 primary prostate tumor

182 We performed comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) on the genomic DNA of patien

183 nalysis with either conventional comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) or multiplex ligation-depend

184 profiles obtained from 107 array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies.

185 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) technology is used to discov

186 The application of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to lesion-induced mutants fo

187 nventional methodologies such as comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to metaphase spreads.

188 itative PCR, breeding, and array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) together confirmed the prese

189 Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed on genomic DNA

190 Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was used to compare gene con

191 , by developing microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) with multiple species.

192 array analysis (ROMA), a form of comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), at a resolution exceeding p

193 Using Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH), differences were traced bac

194 This microarray comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)-based analysis has identifie

195 ent, and profiling genomes using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH).

196 phoresis (PFGE), and array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH).

197 ched metastases were analyzed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH).

198 ing a high density, gene-centric Comparative Genomic Hybridizations (CGH) array on cell lines and pri

199 Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridizations (CGH) interrogate genomic DNA to

200 lating cfDNA and performed array comparative genomic hybridization copy number profiling and deep AR

201 Unsupervised analyses of array comparative genomic hybridization data associated loss of chromosome

202 Applying CORE to comparative genomic hybridization data from a large set of tumor sam

203 od (BioHMM) for segmenting array comparative genomic hybridization data into states with the same und

204 as "genovars." A compilation of comparative genomic hybridization data on 291 Salmonella isolates, i

205 t a meta-analysis of array-based comparative genomic hybridization data that considers both copy numb

206 ome Atlas, quantitative FISH and comparative genomic hybridization data that demonstrate identical ge

207 l algorithms on segmenting array comparative genomic hybridization data.

208 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization demonstrated that the mean size of

209 cognized with great precision by comparative genomic hybridization, eliminating the need for array re

210 that control DNA in array-based comparative genomic hybridization experiments should be selected wit

211 sed on the analysis of data from comparative genomic hybridization experiments, we anticipate that ou

212 Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization has become a widespread method for

213 Array comparative genomic hybridization has been used widely to identify C

214 on of facial characteristics and comparative genomic hybridization has led to new discoveries and ins

215 e alterations by high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization identified features distinct from

216 fibromas/schwannomas using array comparative genomic hybridization, immunohistochemistry, quantitativ

217 by a high-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization in 89 human ovarian cancer specime

218 70 individuals obtained by array-comparative genomic hybridization in a clinical diagnostic setting t

219 riation by high-resolution array-comparative genomic hybridization in diverse tissues from six unrela

220 romosomal imbalances using array comparative genomic hybridization in glial and mesenchymal tumor are

221 Comparative genomic hybridizations indicated few genetic loci common

222 The use of array comparative genomic hybridization is replacing the use of fluorescen

223 Here array comparative genomic hybridization is used to characterize the geneti

224 such as whole genome sequencing/comparative genomic hybridization, is likely to broaden the mutation

225 Using a combination of array comparative genomic hybridization, mate pair and cloned sequences, a

226 We first present an array comparative genomic hybridization method capable of detecting genomi

227 Finally, we used a "virtual comparative genomic hybridization" method to identify copy number al

228 rray analysis, a high-resolution comparative genomic hybridization methodology, with this aim in mind

229 exome tiling array and the array comparative genomic hybridization methodology.

230 co-hybridized to a whole-genome comparative genomic hybridization microarray, which is currently mor

231 mation, we have integrated array comparative genomic hybridization, microarray expression analyses in

232 or HNPP by oligonucleotide-based comparative genomic hybridization microarrays and breakpoint sequenc

233 icroarray (n = 106), array-based comparative genomic hybridization (n = 109), cDNA microarray (n = 76

234 On array-based comparative genomic hybridization (n = 3), gain of 6p was found in 2

235 10q oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (NimbleGen) and polymerase chain r

236 High-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization of 235 high-grade serous epithelia

237 basis for ecological phenotypes, comparative genomic hybridization of a set of 97 diverse strains to

238 Comparative genomic hybridization of adenomas from Rassf1a(-/-); Apc

239 es were identified by microarray comparative genomic hybridization of genomic DNA from 150 individual

240 anges were monitored using array comparative genomic hybridization of laser-capture microdissected pr

241 commonly detected by array based comparative genomic hybridization of sample to reference DNAs, but p

242 e microarray with probe design optimized for genomic hybridization offers the highest sensitivity and

243 We performed high resolution comparative genomic hybridization on 25 MCC specimens using a high-d

244 bset of these tumors (n = 32) by comparative genomic hybridization on a 185K oligonucleotide array pl

245 XLID) were investigated by array comparative genomic hybridization on a high-density oligonucleotide

246 -wide copy-number analysis using comparative genomic hybridization on a panel of mouse ovarian cancer

247 We performed comparative genomic hybridization on a single human microarray platf

248 performed high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization on diagnostic specimens from 47 ch

249 to implement targeted 1q21 array comparative genomic hybridization on individuals (n = 42) with 1q21-

250 AC microarray was used for array comparative genomic hybridization on prostate cancer samples and cel

251 irmed using an ultra-dense array comparative genomic hybridization platform.

252 Genomic hybridization platforms, including BAC-CGH and g

253 arge CNVs (> 15 kb) in the array comparative genomic hybridization profiles for the same genome.

254 ch had a 16p11.2 deletion, using comparative genomic hybridization, quantitative polymerase-chain-rea

255 ut not polyploidy based on array comparative genomic hybridization results.

256 complexities; in one case, array comparative genomic hybridization revealed 18 copy number changes.

257 Array comparative genomic hybridization revealed a partial loss of chromos

258 Investigation by array-comparative genomic hybridization revealed deletion of a small regio

259 Additionally, array comparative genomic hybridization revealed that novel as well as pre

260 number; this results from biases in targeted genomic hybridization, sequence factors such as GC conte

261 missed by other methods, such as comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism mi

262 gh-density oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization, specifically interrogating the 17

263 Array-based comparative genomic hybridization studies revealed deletions in the

264 ents referred for clinical array comparative genomic hybridization studies.

265 ons, we performed an array-based comparative genomic hybridization survey of 128 non-small-cell lung

266 By using a combination of array-comparative genomic hybridization, TaqMan copy number assays, and se

267 (arrayCGH) is a microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization technique that has been used to co

268 c studies using microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization technology have resulted in better

269 We performed array comparative genomic hybridization testing in blood samples obtained

270 After genomic hybridization, the arrays were scanned and data

271 s previously identified by array comparative genomic hybridization to be involved in aggressive prost

272 -1 to evaluate mitotic activity, comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosomal aberrations,

273 exome sequencing and array-based comparative genomic hybridization to evaluate a subset of patients w

274 We used array comparative genomic hybridization to identify a 219-kb deletion in X

275 e marrow at diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization to investigate relapse-specific ge

276 We performed array comparative genomic hybridization to map these deletions and confirm

277 ined by QF-PCR, was validated by comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays.

278 vantage of high-resolution array-comparative genomic hybridization to search for ALK rearrangements i

279 with common breast cancers using comparative genomic hybridization, transcriptional profiling, and re

280 We identified all DAFCs by comparative genomic hybridization, uncovering two new amplicons in a

281 We performed array comparative genomic hybridization using a custom Agilent 1 M oligonu

282 We performed array comparative genomic hybridization using Agilent platform, transcript

283 rade gliomas, we performed array comparative genomic hybridization using two independent commercial a

284 Comparative genomic hybridization using whole-genome microarrays (ar

285 ry tumor cells using array-based comparative genomic hybridization, using frozen specimens obtained b

286 Array comparative genomic hybridization was performed on DNA extracted fro

287 Microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization was used to examine the genomic co

288 Array comparative genomic hybridization was used to identify copy number v

289 Array comparative genomic hybridization was used to screen for deletions a

290 Using array-based comparative genomic hybridization, we followed disease progression a

291 Using comparative genomic hybridization, we found that NCC-derived NBL tum

292 Using array comparative genomic hybridization, we found that, as in human cancer

293 nt-spanning PCR as well as array comparative genomic hybridization, we have identified the breakpoint

294 Using comparative genomic hybridization, we observed the identical deletio

295 rsion technology and array-based comparative genomic hybridization, which revealed a rearrangement tr

296 sculinization disorders by array-comparative genomic hybridization, which revealed in 1.35% of cases

297 Herein, we used comparative genomic hybridization with a custom high-resolution miRN

298 ans, horses, cattle, and pigs by comparative genomic hybridization with microarrays containing coding

299 oblem of MIC contamination using comparative genomic hybridization with purified MIC and MAC DNA prob

300 u hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic hybridization, with a tiling path of 0.2 Mb reso

301 e copy-number changes with array comparative genomic hybridization yields the first direct estimate o