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 ere further analysed using array comparative genomic hybridization.

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

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

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

7 ed with the application of array comparative genomic hybridization.

8 high-resolution chromosome-wide comparative genomic hybridization.

9 with the use of oligonucleotide comparative genomic hybridization.

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

11 uestion using yeast genetics and comparative genomic hybridization.

12 mber changes identified by array comparative genomic hybridization.

13 ybridization and BAC-based array comparative genomic hybridization.

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

15 copy number assessment by array comparative genomic hybridization.

16 dentified with genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization.

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

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

19 variants were detected by array comparative genomic hybridization.

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

21 e identified through array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

22 de copy number analysis by array comparative genomic hybridization.

23 nital abnormalities, using array comparative genomic hybridization.

24 ession profiling and array-based comparative genomic hybridization.

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

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

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

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

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

30 cular techniques including array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and Droplet Digital PCR (dd

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

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

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

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

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

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

78 Array genomic hybridization (AGH) provides a higher detection

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

80 Array comparative genomic hybridization also identified recurrent focal co

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

82 Comparative genomic hybridization analyses of 41 strains indicate th

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

84 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis after laser capture micro

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

86 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis demonstrated that the tra

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

88 Comparative genomic hybridization analysis indicated that single-cop

89 Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of one case demonstrated

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

91 Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis was performed on biopsy s

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

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

94 disabilities by microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 Comparative genomic hybridization and genome sequencing of strain 25

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

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

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

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

106 Comparative genomic hybridization and next-generation sequencing con

107 Comparative genomic hybridization and PCR screening showed that the

108 Subsequent comparative genomic hybridization and quantitative polymerase chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

117 Array comparative genomic hybridization and spectral karyotype analysis re

118 fferent antibodies), array-based comparative genomic hybridization and targeted next generation seque

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

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

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

122 bulked-segregant analysis, array comparative genomic hybridization, and CRISPR/Cas9 methodologies to

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 s or even probes for large-scale comparative genomic hybridization array processes.

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

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

133 Comparative genomic hybridization array, SCN1A testing and genetic t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 analysis methods, such as array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and whole-genome sequencing

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 ce in situ hybridization (FISH), comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), microsatellite analysis (MS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

220 Comparative genomic hybridizations indicated few genetic loci common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

234 10q oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (NimbleGen) and polymerase chain r

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 Genomic hybridization platforms, including BAC-CGH and g

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

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

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

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

255 Array comparative genomic hybridization revealed a partial loss of chromos

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

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

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

259 Array comparative genomic hybridization showed a 22q11.23 duplication of 1

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

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

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

263 ents referred for clinical array comparative genomic hybridization studies.

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

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

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

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

268 After genomic hybridization, the arrays were scanned and data

269 elanoma DNA was exposed to array comparative genomic hybridization to assess gross chromosomal copy n

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

271 -1 to evaluate mitotic activity, comparative genomic hybridization to detect chromosomal aberrations,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

282 Comparative genomic hybridization using whole-genome microarrays (ar

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

284 Array comparative genomic hybridization was performed on DNA extracted fro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

292 Using comparative genomic hybridization, we observed the identical deletio

293 ification (MLPA) and array-based comparative genomic hybridization were performed to confirm copy num

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

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

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

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

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

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

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