Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 11, 2019

Comparison of quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and karyotype analysis for prenatal screening of chromosomal aneuploidies in 270 amniotic fluid samples

  • Nooshin Masoudzadeh and Shahram Teimourian ORCID logo EMAIL logo



Quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) technique is a rapid prenatal aneuploidy detection method. This method can diagnose abnormality in chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Karyotyping is a technique in which, by the process of pairing and painting, all the chromosomes of an organism are displayed under a microscope. In the present study, a statistical comparison was made between karyotyping and QF-PCR for prenatal diagnosis.


A total of 270 samples were tested for QF-PCR and the results were compared with karyotyping. We also investigated heterozygosity of short tandem repeat (STR) markers by QF-PCR. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples (n = 270) were extracted from amniotic fluid (AF) cells. After PCR amplifications, analysis was performed using GeneMarker. A Devyser QF-PCR kit containing 26 primers was used to estimate the observed heterozygosity of STR markers located on chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y.


The results of karyotyping and QF-PCR were as follows: trisomy 13 (one case), trisomy 18 (five cases), trisomy 21 (five cases) and triploidy (one case). Chromosomal rearrangements and mosaicisms were not detected by QF-PCR but were detected by karyotyping. Maternal cell contamination (MCC) made the karyotyping fail but not the QF-PCR.


The QF-PCR method is especially important because it is fast, accurate, low cost and has a short turnaround time. This method will avoid ambiguity of karyotype results and parental anxiety. It will also shorten clinical management for high-risk families.

Corresponding author: Shahram Teimourian, PhD, PD, Department of Medical Genetics, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Crossroads of Shahid Hemmat and Shahid Chamran Highways, P.O. Box: 15875-6171, Tehran 1449614535, Iran

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


1. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Bilardo CM, Oepkes D, Bonsel GJ, van Lith JM. Karyotyping or rapid aneuploidy detection in prenatal diagnosis? The different views of users and providers of prenatal care. Br J Obstect Gynecol 2009;116:1396–9.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02229.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

2. Zeinali S, Tavakol ZK, Kianfar S, Kariminejad A, Mahdieh N, Hashemi M, et al. Detection of numerical aneuploidy of chromosomes X, Y, 13, 18 and 21 in 100 blood and fetal samples by QF-PCR method. J Proteomics Bioinform 2012;5:147–51.10.4172/jpb.1000227Search in Google Scholar

3. Guzel AI, Yilmaz MB, Demirhan O, Pazarbasi A, Kocaturk-Sel S, Erkoc MA, et al. Rapid detection of fetal aneuploidies by quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction for prenatal diagnosis in the Turkish population. Balkan J Med Genet 2012;15:11–7.10.2478/v10034-012-0002-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

4. Shin YJ, Chung JH, Kim DJ, Ryu HM, Kim MY, Han JY, et al. Quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction for rapid prenatal screening of fetal aneuploidies in chorionic villus sampling in a single institution. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2016;59:444–53.10.5468/ogs.2016.59.6.444Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

5. Faas BH, Cirigliano V, Bui TH. Rapid methods for targeted prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome Aneuploidies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;16:81–7.10.1016/j.siny.2011.01.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Nooshin M, Shahram T. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies using quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR). J Gynecol Reprod Med 2017;1:1–5.Search in Google Scholar

7. Akin T, Sengul T, Mehmet E, Nurten K, Davut G, Idris K. The combined QF-PCR and cytogenetic approach in prenatal diagnosis. Mol Biol Rep 2014;41:7431–6.10.1007/s11033-014-3630-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Papoulidis I, Siomou E, Sotiriadis A, Efstathiou G, Psara A, Sevastopoulou E, et al. Dual testing with QF-PCR and karyotype analysis for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities. Evaluation of 13,500 cases with consideration of using QF-PCR as a stand-alone test according to referral indications. Prenat Diagn 2012;32:680–5.10.1002/pd.3888Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Abdul VS, Pralhad K, Gopinath PM, Kapaettu S. Quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies. Int J Hum Genet 2010;10:121–9.10.1080/09723757.2010.11886095Search in Google Scholar

10. Melissa G, David G, Saharon R, Yaniv E. lobSTR: a short tandem repeat profiler for personal genomes. Genome Res 2012;22:1154–62.10.1101/gr.135780.111Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Ordoñez E, Marongiu A, Paz Cañadas M, Ejarque M, et al. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QF-PCR, results of 9 years of clinical experience. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:40–9.10.1002/pd.2192Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Jain S, Panigrahi I, Sheth J, Agarwal S. STR markers for detecting heterogeneity in Indian population. Mol Biol Rep 2012;39:461–5.10.1007/s11033-011-0759-5Search in Google Scholar

13. Ahangari N, Doosti M, Ahangari E, Rafiee NB, Karimiani EG. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies using QF-PCR in 333 cases. Mol Med J 2016;2:38–42.Search in Google Scholar

14. Shi Y, Li X, Ju D, Li Y, Zhang X, Zhang Y. Genetic polymorphisms of short tandem repeat loci D13S305, D13S631 and D13S634 in the Han population of Tianjin, China. Exp Ther Med 2015;10:773–7.10.3892/etm.2015.2560Search in Google Scholar

15. Quaife R, Wong LF, Tan SY, Chua WY, Lim SS, Hammersley CJ, et al. QF-PCR-based prenatal detection of aneuploidy in a southeast Asian population. Prenat Diagn 2004;24:407–13.10.1002/pd.826Search in Google Scholar

16. Baig S, Ho SSY, Ng BL, Chiu L, Koay ESC, Leow GH, et al. Development of quantitative-fluorescence polymerase chain reaction for the rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosomal aneuploidies in 1,000 samples in Singapore. Singapore Med J 2010;51:343–8.Search in Google Scholar

17. Dey M, Sharma S, Aggarwal S. Prenatal screening methods for aneuploidies. N Am J Med Sci 2013;5:182–90.10.4103/1947-2714.109180Search in Google Scholar

18. Tariq MA, Ullah O, Riazuddin SA, Riazuddin S. Allele frequency distribution of 13 X-chromosomal STR loci in Pakistani population. Int J Legal Med 2008;122:525–8.10.1007/s00414-008-0263-1Search in Google Scholar

19. Badenas C, Rodríguez-Revenga L, Morales C, Mediano C, PlajaA,Pérez-Iribarne MM, et al. Assessment of QF-PCR as the first approach in prenatal diagnosis. J Mol Diagn 2010;12:828–34.10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090224Search in Google Scholar

20. Langlois S, Duncan A; SOGC Genetics Committee; CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee. Use of a DNA method, QF-PCR, in the prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011;33:955–60.10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35022-8Search in Google Scholar

21. de Moraes RW, de Carvalho MH, de Amorim-Filho AG, Francisco RP, Romão RM, Levi JE, et al. Validation of QF-PCR for prenatal diagnoses in a Brazilian population. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2017;72:400–4.10.6061/clinics/2017(07)02Search in Google Scholar

22. Tekcan A, Tural S, Elbistan M, Kara N, Guven D, Kocak I. The combined QF-PCR and cytogenetic approach in prenatal diagnosis. Mol Biol Rep. 2014;41:7431–6.10.1007/s11033-014-3630-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Nasiri H, Noori-Dalooi MR, Dastan J, Ghaffari SR. Investigation of QF-PCR application for rapid prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal aneuploidies in Iranian population. Iran J Pediatr 2011;21:15–20.Search in Google Scholar

24. Nasiri H, Dastan J, Seifi MH, Dalooi N, Ghaffari SR. Application of molecular cytogenetic technique for rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies in Iranian population. J Fam Reprod Health 2009;3:51–4.Search in Google Scholar

25. Saberzadeh J, Miri MR, Tabei MB, Dianatpour M, Fardaei M. Genetic variations of 21 STR markers on chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y in the south Iranian population. Genet Mol Res 2016;15:1–9.10.4238/gmr15049065Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Mann K, Petek E, Pertl B. Prenatal detection of chromosome aneuploidy by quantitative fluorescence-PCR. Methods Mol Med 2011;688:207–26.10.1007/978-1-60761-947-5_14Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Ozge OK, Altug K, Taha RO, Ozgur K, Berk O, Mehmet O, et al. QF-PCR in invasive prenatal diagnosis: a single-center experience in Turkey. Turk J Med Sci 2017;47:142–7.10.3906/sag-1511-157Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Salas PC, Vázquez-Rico I, León-Justel A, Carreto-Alba P, Granell-Escobar R. Effectiveness of QF-PCR, karyotyping and microarray in detecting clinically significant chromosomal aberrations of foetuses with abnormal findings on ultrasound. J Mol Genet Med 2018;12:344.Search in Google Scholar

29. Galehdari H, Barati M, Mahmoudi M, Shahbazian N, Masihi S, Zamani M, et al. Validity of chromosomal aneuploidies testing during pregnancy: a comparison of karyotype, interphase-FISH and QF-PCR techniques. Biomed Res 2018;29:2164–8.10.4066/biomedicalresearch.29-17-3995Search in Google Scholar

30. Rostami P, Valizadegan S, Ghalandary M, Mehrjouy MM, Esmail-Nia G, Khalili S, et al. Prenatal screening for aneuploidies using QF-PCR and karyotyping: a comprehensive study in Iranian population. Arch Iran Med 2015;18:296–303.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-03-02
Accepted: 2019-05-09
Published Online: 2019-06-11
Published in Print: 2019-08-27

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 4.2.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow