Conventional Karyotyping in Down Syndrome: Diagnostic Relevance in the Molecular Era
Rishika Sharma , Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow – 227105, Uttar Pradesh, India Janhavi Verma , Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow – 227105, Uttar Pradesh, India Somali Sanyal* , Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow – 227105, Uttar Pradesh, India Garima Awasthi** , Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus, Lucknow – 227105, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaAbstract
Down syndrome (DS), also known as trisomy 21, is the most common chromosomal aberration, characterized by global intellectual disability and developmental defects. The syndrome results from an extra copy of chromosome 21, leading to gene dosage changes and normal development. Cytogenetically, DS has been classified into complete trisomy 21, Robertsonian translocation trisomy 21 and mosaic trisomy 21, with different mechanisms of occurrence and recurrence risks. Diagnosis is important for confirming disease, prognosis, prenatal diagnosis, recurrence risk and genetic counselling. Traditional karyotyping has been the gold standard of cytogenetic diagnosis for a long time, as it allows observation of the chromosomes and detection of both numeric and structural abnormalities. Traditional cytogenetics still has clinical value, despite modern diagnostic methods (FISH, chromosomal microarray analysis, quantitative fluorescent PCR, next-generation sequencing, and non-invasive prenatal testing) providing better efficiency, speed and genomic data. It is particularly required for the diagnosis of balanced translocations, chromosomal rearrangements and low-level mosaicism that may escape detection by molecular methods. Moreover, recent advances in artificial intelligence, digital karyotyping and cytogenomic platforms have significantly improved the efficiency of cytogenetic analysis. This review attempts to impart the cytogenetics of DS, the role of conventional karyotyping, the new molecular diagnostic methods, a comparison between the conventional and molecular approaches, technological advances and future perspectives on the integration of genomics in diagnostics while emphasizing the continued importance of classical karyotyping despite ongoing advances in molecular technology.
Keywords
Down syndrome, trisomy 21, conventional karyotyping, cytogenetics.
References
Akhtar, F., & Bokhari, S. R. A. (2023). Down syndrome. National Library of Medicine; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526016/
Amor, D. J., & Gardner, R. J. M. (2025). Down Syndrome, Other Full Aneuploidies, Polyploidy, and the Influence of Parental Age. Gardner and Sutherland’s Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counseling, 327–364.https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780197747728.003.0013
Antonarakis, S. E. (2016). Down syndrome and the complexity of genome dosage imbalance. Nature Reviews Genetics, 18(3), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.154
Antonarakis, S. E., Lyle, R., Dermitzakis, E. T., Reymond, A., & Deutsch, S. (2004). Chromosome 21 and Down syndrome: from genomics to pathophysiology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5(10), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1448
Antonarakis, S. E., Skotko, B. G., Rafii, M. S., Strydom, A., Pape, S. E., Bianchi, D. W., Sherman, S. L., & Reeves, R. H. (2020). Down Syndrome. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6(1).
Ataman, A. D., Vatanoglu-Lutz, E. E., & Yildirim, G. (2012). Medicine in stamps: history of Down syndrome through philately. Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 13(4), 267–269. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2012.43
Chebly Alain. (2026). Cytogenetics in the genomics era: why karyotyping still matters. BMC Medical Genomics, 19(1), 10–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-025-02296-0
Chiang, T., Schultz, R. M., & Lampson, M. A. (2012). Meiotic Origins of Maternal Age-Related Aneuploidy1. Biology of Reproduction, 86(1). https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.111.094367
Federico, C., Brancato, D., Bruno, F., Coniglio, E., Sturiale, V., & Saccone, S. (2025). Cytogenetics and Cytogenomics in Clinical Diagnostics: Genome Architecture, Structural Variants, and Translational Applications. Genes, 16(7), 780–780. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16070780
Gardiner, K. (2014). Pharmacological approaches to improving cognitive function in Down syndrome: current status and considerations. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 103. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.s51476
Garg, R. K., Kumar, Y., Niwas, R., & Singh, J. (2025). Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_266_25
Hassold, T., & Hunt, P. (2009). Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: what we know and what we wish we knew. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 21(6), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.1097/mop.0b013e328332c6ab
Hu, X., Hu, Y., Wang, H., Yu, C., Zheng, J., Zhang, H., & Zheng, J. (2024). Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, Volume 17, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s437441
Jaiswal, S. K., Kumar, A., & Rai, A. K. (2021). Molecular Cytogenetic Classification of Down Syndrome and Screening of Somatic Aneuploidy in Mothers. Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 161(8-9), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519624
Kava, M. P., Tullu, M. S., Muranjan, M. N., & Girisha, K. M. (2004). Down syndrome: Clinical profile from India. Archives of Medical Research, 35(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2003.06.005
Kazemi, M., Salehi, M., & Majid Kheirollahi. (2016). Down Syndrome: Current Status, Challenges and Future Perspectives. International Journal of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, 5(3), 125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5125364/
Korenberg, J. R., Chen, X. N., Schipper, R., Sun, Z., Gonsky, R., Gerwehr, S., Carpenter, N., Daumer, C., Dignan, P., & Disteche, C. (1994). Down syndrome phenotypes: the consequences of chromosomal imbalance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(11), 4997–5001. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.11.4997
Kusre, G., Sarma, M., Nirmolia, T., & Shankarishan, P. (2015). Robertsonian Translocation t (21; 21) in a Female Born to Normal Parents: A Case Report. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR, 9(1), GD01–GD02. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/10638.5372
Lawrence, J. (2026). Current and Future Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Genetics. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.100581
Makhamreh, M. M., Chong, M. L., & Van den Veyver, I. B. (2025). Advancements in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing: Emerging Technologies and Evolving Applications. Diagnostics, 15(20), 2579. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15202579
Namba, A., Nishiyama, M., Weiser, J. J., Wyatt, P., Kimura, M., Niizawa, R., Miki, A., Ishihara, O., Itakura, A., & Kamei, Y. (2013). Prenatal diagnosis of complex rearrangement of chromosome 21: The significance of interphase and metaphase fluorescence in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization. Clinical Case Reports, 1(2), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.22
National Down Syndrome Society. (2024). Understanding a Diagnosis of Down Syndrome. Ndss.org. https://ndss.org/lifespan/understanding-a-diagnosis-of-down-syndrome
Ozkan, E., & Lacerda, M. P. (2023, August 8). Genetics, Cytogenetic Testing And Conventional Karyotype. PubMed; StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563293/
Papavassiliou, P., York, T. P., Gursoy, N., Hill, G., Nicely, L. V., Sundaram, U., McClain, A., Aggen, S. H., Eaves, L., Riley, B., & Jackson-Cook, C. (2009). The phenotype of persons having mosaicism for trisomy 21/Down syndrome reflects the percentage of trisomic cells present in different tissues. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 149A(4), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.32729
Pazarbasi, A., Demirhan, O., Alptekin, D., Ozgunen, F., Ozpak, L., Yilmaz, M., Nazlican, E., Tanriverdi, N., Luleyap, U., & Gümürdülü, D. (2013). Inheritance of a Chromosome 3 and 21 Translocation in the Fetuses, with One also Having Trisomy 21, in Three Pregnancies in One Family. Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics : BJMG, 16(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjmg-2013-0039
Perluigi, M., & Butterfield, D. A. (2012). Oxidative Stress and Down Syndrome: A Route toward Alzheimer-Like Dementia. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/724904
PLAIASU Vasilica (2017). Down Syndrome – Genetics and Cardiogenetics. Mædica, 12(3), 208. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5706761/
Rather, R. A., & Saha, S. C. (2023). Reappraisal of evolving methods in non-invasive prenatal screening: Discovery, biology and clinical utility. Heliyon, 9(3), e13923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13923
Rosenblum, L. S., Holmes, J., & Taghiyev, A. F. (2025). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence-Guided Karyotyping: A Review and Reflection. Genes, 16(6), 685–685. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060685
Ruparelia, A., Wiseman, F., Sheppard, O., Tybulewicz, V. L. J., & Fisher, E. M. C. (2010). Down syndrome and the molecular pathogenesis resulting from trisomy of human chromosome 21. Journal of Biomedical Research, 24(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-8301(10)60016-4
Shaffer, L. G., McGowan-Jordan, J., & Schmid, M. (Eds.). (2013). ISCN 2013: an international system for human cytogenetic nomenclature (2013). Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers.
Shakoori, A. R. (2017). Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) and Its Applications. Chromosome Structure and Aberrations, 1(1), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3673-3_16
Shen, C. (2023). Molecular diagnosis of chromosomal disorders. Elsevier EBooks, 393–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-91788-9.00016-8
Spinner, N. B., & Ferguson-Smith, M. A. (2018). Cytogenetic Analysis. Elsevier EBooks, 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812536-6.00005-5
Wang, C., Tang, J., Tong, K., Huang, D., Tu, H., & Zhu, J. (2022). Chromosomal microarray analysis versus noninvasive prenatal testing in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency. Journal of Human Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-022-01041-0
Wen, H., Deng, H., Li, B., Chen, J., Zhu, J., Zhang, X., Yoshida, S., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Mitochondrial diseases: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic advances. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-024-02044-3
Wilberg, Smelin, E., Yohaly, A., Espinoza-Moreno, N. A., Edgardo, M., DuPont, B. R., & Ramos-Zaldívar, H. M. (2022). Multi‐tissue cytogenetic analysis for the diagnosis of mosaic Down syndrome: A case report. Clinical Case Reports, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.5604
Wiseman, F. K., Al-Janabi, T., Hardy, J., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Nizetic, D., Tybulewicz, V. L. J., Fisher, E. M. C., & Strydom, A. (2015). A genetic cause of Alzheimer disease: mechanistic insights from Down syndrome. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(9), 564–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3983
Xue, S., Liu, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, L., Chang, B., Ding, G., & Dai, P. (2024). Clinical application of chromosome microarray analysis and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis in Northwest China. Frontiers in Genetics, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2024.1347942
Yang, Y., & Jiang, X. (2024). Comparison of chromosomal microarray and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis using 491 amniotic fluid samples. Medicine, 103(49), e40822. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000040822
Zhu, Y., Chau, M. H. K., Wang, H., Song, N., Wei, R., Suen, K. W., Chan, A. C. S., Hung, W. C., Cao, Y., Dong, Z., Leung, T. Y., Cheung, S. W., & Choy, K. W. (2025). Clinical validation of artificial intelligence-assisted karyotyping on peripheral blood in a cytogenetic diagnostic laboratory. Human Genetics, 144(11-12), 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-025-02789-z
Download and View Statistics
Copyright License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rishika Sharma, Janhavi Verma, Somali Sanyal* , Garima Awasthi**

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

Applied Sciences
| Open Access |
DOI: