Skip to content


  • Commentary
  • Open Access

“Classical cytogenetics” is not equal to “banding cytogenetics”

Molecular Cytogenetics201710:3

  • Received: 4 January 2017
  • Accepted: 10 February 2017
  • Published:



Human cytogenetics is a field suffering from the argumentation that it ‘is nowadays really outdated and to be replaced by molecular high throughput approaches’. Thus, it is to be expected that non-cytogeneticists do mistakes in nomenclature of cytogenetics, which is exposed to repeated reforms, like e.g. recently the now hardly manageable and readable nomenclature for array-comparative genomic hybridization.


An unexpected nomenclature problem becomes more and more obvious in human cytogenetics – it seems to become difficult to understand how and when to use the designations “classical cytogenetics” or “banding cytogenetics”. Here it is highlighted that “classical cytogenetics” stands for studies undertaken by Orcein or Giemsa staining without (!) previous trypsin-treatment. However, in human (diagnostic) cytogenetics almost exclusively “banding cytogenetics” is applied.


The terms “classical cytogenetics” and “banding cytogenetics” have to be clearly distinguished and correctly applied.


  • Classical cytogenetics
  • Banding cytogenetics
  • Research
  • Diagnostics
  • ISCN

As Editor of Molecular Cytogenetics I felt that it may be necessary to provide to the community of our field the following commentary:

Cytogenetics is a field now being ~130 year old [1]. Thus, we should expect it to be a well-accepted and established area, where everyone working in genetics is aware of its advantages and unique possibilities (see Table 1). Well, we all know that this is not the case, unfortunately, as our field suffers from the argumentation that it is outdated and to be replaced by more modern approaches soon [27]. This was even already the case when I entered this field in 1991, and already before, when my supervisor Prof. Erich Gebhart (Erlangen, Germany) published his first articles in 1968 [8], as he told me. In Germany there is a saying: “People declared dead live longer”; so this seems to be valid for (molecular) cytogenetics, too. For example, it is now realized that the karyotype codes “system inheritance” or the overall blueprint, which serves as an important tool to monitor genome instability in cancer and other diseases/illnesses. Moreover, since chromosomes and genes represent different levels of genetic information, karyotype analysis should not be replaced by DNA sequencing, as the more exciting phase of molecular cytogenetics is yet to come [7].
Table 1

Advantages and unique features of (molecular) cytogenetics compared to other approaches

Features of (molecular) cytogenetics

1. Analyses on single cell level

2. Analyses of whole genome

3. Quick and simple detection of gross genetic alterations

4. All kinds of structural changes can be detected irrespective if balanced or unbalanced

5. Analyses ‘in situ’ not ‘in vitro’

6. Sex mismatched contamination can be detected easily

7. Low level mosaics are detectable on routine bases

8. Monitor cell population stability and heterogeneity by comparing the rates of clonal and non clonal karyotypes

It is not at all surprising, that non-specialists for our field do mistakes in nomenclature of cytogenetics, which is based on the “international system for human cytogenetic nomenclature” (ISCN), or how it was recently renamed “international system for human cytogenomic nomenclature” (also ISCN!?) [9]. ISCN was and still is in parts difficult to understand and matter of discussion [1013]. Also some recent reforms of e.g. the array comparative genomic hybridization nomenclature led to profound problems with readability, as important hyphens were abandoned; two examples are given in Table 2.
Table 2

Comparison of readability of microarray-based chromosome nomenclature of 2013 [17] and 2016 edition of ISCN [9] in two examples


Nomenclature acc. to 2013 edition of ISCN [17]

Nomenclature acc. to 2016 edition of ISCN [9]

Example 1

arr[hg19] 12p13.33p11.1(84,917-34,382,567)x3

arr[GRCh37] 12p13.33p11.1(84917_34382567)x3

Example 2

arr[hg19] 21q11.2q22.3(9,931,865-46,914,745)x1

arr[GRCh37] 21q11.2q22.3(9931865_46914745)x1

However, it is really awkward to see that even people studying chromosomes with devotion and publish in parts extremely interesting results, seem not to be aware any more of a simple nomenclature based on the history of cytogenetics; i.e. when to use the designations “classical cytogenetics” and “banding cytogenetics”. Already in 2002 I summarized: “History of human cytogenetics can be divided into three major time periods: the pre-banding era (1879–1970), the pure banding era (1970–1986) and the molecular cytogenetic era (1986–today). The prebanding era is characterized by the first visualization the word “chromosome” (from chroma = color and soma = body) in 1888, the determination of the correct modal human chromosome number in 1956 and the detection of the first chromosomal abnormality in Down syndrome in 1959. The banding era started with the discovery of the Qbanding method by Dr. Lore Zech (Upsala) in 1970 [14]. Many more chromosomal abnormalities, such as translocations, inversions, deletions and insertions, could be detected from now on. Currently, the GTG-banding approach (G-bands by Trypsin using Giemsa) [15] is still the gold-standard for all cytogenetic techniques. However, the pure banding era ended in 1986 with the first molecular cytogenetic experiment on human chromosomes” [1].

For the nomenclature problem raised here it is important to recall that the pre-banding era was characterized by the exclusive ability to stain human chromosomes in one color, e.g. Orcein or Giemsa staining without (!) trypsin-treatment. In case someone does a study like that, which is still routinely done in many animal chromosomes [16], or in mutagenesis studies [8], he performs a “classical cytogenetic study”. Still, nowadays no-one will do “classical cytogenetics” in human clinical diagnostic applications, as here we routinely apply “banding cytogenetics”! Unfortunately, it is not hard to find published studies where this difference was not considered (I intentionally do not refer to them here). Also as editor and referee I get more and more submissions with the statement ‘we did classical cytogenetics in this clinical case’. And I have to say then: ‘no you did not, you did banding cytogenetics; please correct that point before we can accept your publication’.

So I herewith want to appeal to all specialists doing banding cytogenetics and who publish or talk about it, please denominate correctly the approach you use. Remember and teach to your students that “classical cytogenetics” is not equal to “banding cytogenetics”.

Thanks a lot.



G-bands by Trypsin using Giemsa



Not applicable.



Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Authors’ contributions

TL is fully responsible for this editorial.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

Institute of Human Genetics, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Kollegiengasse 10, D-07743 Jena, Germany


  1. Liehr T, Claussen U. Current developments in human molecular cytogenetic techniques. Curr Mol Med. 2002;2:269–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Srebniak MI, Boter M, Oudesluijs GO, Cohen-Overbeek T, Govaerts LC, Diderich KE, et al. Genomic SNP array as a gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of foetal ultrasound abnormalities. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:14.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Kooper AJ, Pieters JJ, Faas BH, Hoefsloot LH, van der Burgt I, Zondervan HA, et al. Is routine karyotyping required in prenatal samples with a molecular or metabolic referral? Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5:7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Park SJ, Jung EH, Ryu RS, Kang HW, Ko JM, Kim HJ, et al. Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases. Mol Cytogenet. 2011;4:12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Fauzdar A. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a better option for patients. Mol Cytogenet. 2014;7:I17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Manvelyan M, Cremer FW, Lancé J, Kläs R, Kelbova C, Ramel C, et al. New cytogenetically visible copy number variant in region 8q21.2. Mol Cytogenet. 2011;4:1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Heng HH, Regan SM, Liu G, Ye CJ. Why it is crucial to analyze non clonal chromosome aberrations or NCCAs? Mol Cytogenet. 2016;9:15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Gebhart E. Non-chance distribution of 8-hydroxyquinoline sulfate-induced chromatid breaks. Naturwissenschaften. 1968;55:45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. ISCN 2016. In: McGowan-Jordan J, Simons A, Schmid M, editors. An international system for human cytogenomic nomenclature (2016). Basel, Freiburg: Karger; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Kosyakova N, Weise A, Mrasek K, Claussen U, Liehr T, Nelle H. The hierarchically organized splitting of chromosomal bands for all human chromosomes. Mol Cytogenet. 2009;2:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Meloni-Ehrig AM. Commentary on ISCN 2005. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2007;175:89–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitelman F, Rowley JD. ISCN (2005) is not acceptable for describing clonal evolution in cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2007;46:213–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Liehr T. Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs): a spotlight on some nomenclature problems. J Histochem Cytochem. 2009;57:991–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Schlegelberger B. In memoriam: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dr. med. h.c. Lore Zech; 24.9.1923 - 13.3.2013: Honorary member of the European Society of Human Genetics, Honorary member of the German Society of Human Genetics, Doctor laureate, the University of Kiel, Germany. Mol Cytogenet. 2013;6:20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Seabright M. A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lancet. 1971;2:971–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Yano CF, Bertollo LA, Molina WF, Liehr T, Mde Cioffi B. Genomic organization of repetitive DNAs and its implications for male karyotype and the neo-Y chromosome differentiation in Erythrinus erythrinus (Characiformes, Erythrinidae). Comp Cytogenet. 2014;8:139–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. ISCN 2013. In: Shaffer LG, McGowan-Jordan J, Schmid M, editors. An international system for human cytogenetic nomenclature (2013). Basel, Freiburg: Karger; 2013.Google Scholar


© The Author(s). 2017