METHODS: Using real-time quantitative PCR, we compared the results of the six-STS (sY84, sY86, sY127, sY134, sY254, sY255) scheme with those of the eight-STS (sY84, sY86, sY127, sY134, sY254, sY255, sY145, sY152) scheme in detecting Y chromosome microdeletions.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the detection rate of the deletion of the azoospermia factor (AZF) regions between the six-STS and eight-STS methods (9.34% [575/6177] vs 8.85% [542/6122], P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Though the eight-STS scheme increased the detection of AZFd, its detection rate of the AZF region deletion was not significantly different from that of the six-STS method. From the perspectives of experimental operation, economic cost and clinical strategy guidance, the six-STS is better than the eight-STS scheme for the detection of Y chromosome microdeletions.
方法:使用实时定量PCR,我们比较了6-STS(sY84,sY86,sY127,sY134,sY254,sY255)方案与8-STS(sY84,sY86,sY127,sY134,sY254,sY255,sY145,sY152)方案检测Y染色体微缺失的结果。
结果:六-STS和八-STS方法对无精子症因子(AZF)区域缺失的检出率差异无统计学意义(9.34%[575/6177]vs8.85%[542/6122],P>0.05)。
结论:尽管八STS方案增加了AZFd的检测,其对AZF区缺失的检出率与六-STS方法无显著差异。从实验操作的角度来看,经济成本和临床策略指导,在检测Y染色体微缺失方面,6-STS方案优于8-STS方案。