Carrier diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome--a challenge in antenatal clinics

Pre-conception and antenatal screening for the fragile site on the X-chromosome

BACKGROUND

Fragile X is the most common cause of mental retardation after Down syndrome. It is the commonest inherited cause of mental retardation, and results from a dynamic mutation in a gene on the long arm of the X chromosome. Various strategies are used for prenatal screening.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pre-conceptual or antenatal screening for Fragile X carrier status in apparently low risk women confers any additional benefit over the existing practice of offering testing to women thought to be at increased risk.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (November 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1980 to 2001), and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing women being tested regardless of family history (intervention group) with women tested only when there is a family history of either fragile X and/or other undiagnosed mental illness/impairment (control group).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

No trials were included.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No information is available from randomised trials to indicate whether routine pre-conceptual or antenatal screening for fragile X carrier status confers any benefit over testing women thought to be at increased risk.

Wide scope prenatal diagnosis at Kuopio University Hospital 1997-1998: integration of gene tests and fetal karyotyping

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the applicability of carrier screening in women undergoing invasive prenatal diagnosis.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

University-based clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and fifty-six pregnant women.

METHODS

Gene tests were offered for fragile X syndrome, aspartylglycosaminuria and infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis at the time of invasive prenatal testing.

RESULTS

The overall uptake of the tests was 92%. Previously unrecognised carriership was found in 10 women: aspartylglycosaminuria (7); infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (2) and fragile X (1). Fetal genotyping was carried out in one carrier of aspartylglycosaminuria whose partner was also a carrier, and in one woman who was found to have fragile X premutation. Both fetuses were unaffected.

CONCLUSION

Carrier screening for single-gene disorders is feasible and well accepted among pregnant women undergoing invasive prenatal testing. The major benefit is that there is no need to consider extra invasive tests when carriership is detected. Incorporation of genetic testing into fetal karyotyping gives more security to future parents.

Pregnancy outcome in carriers of fragile X

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pregnancy outcome in women who are carriers of fragile X.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional case-control study.

SETTING

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kuopio University Hospital, Finland.

SAMPLE

Sixty-three singleton pregnancies in carriers of fragile X who were referred for genetic counselling and prenatal diagnosis to Kuopio University Hospital.

METHODS

Logistic regression analysis was used to compare pregnancy outcome in women who are fragile X carrier with outcome of the general obstetric population.

RESULTS

Carriers of fragile X often experienced more bleeding in late pregnancy than did the reference group. Otherwise, the course and outcome of pregnancy were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy outcome in women who are carriers of fragile X is favourable. There is no need to initiate special fetal monitoring because of the fragile X status of the woman.

Prenatal diagnosis of fragile X syndrome and the risk of expansion of a premutation

The aim of the present study was to evaluate prospectively the dynamics of the FMR1 gene. The risk of full mutation among pregnant women and the carriers, and the risk of expansion of a premutation allele to a full mutation were estimated. We identified 89 pregnant women with an expanded FMR1 gene seeking prenatal diagnosis. Amniocentesis or chorion villus sampling (CVS) was offered and a DNA test of the FMR1 gene was carried out in such pregnancies. The overall risk of full mutation among women (N = 21) with a repeat size between 60 and 80 was 4.8% (one fetus with mosaicism), and the risk of expansion of the premutation allele to a full mutation was 14% in those offspring to whom the premutation allele was transmitted. The risk of full mutation among the carriers (N = 13) with a repeat size between 81 and 100 was 61.5% (8/13), and the risk of expansion of a premutation allele to a full mutation was 89%. Only one case fell into the category of 101-200 repeats, and expansion to a full mutation was recorded. Fetuses of full mutation mothers inherited the larger allele in 64% (14/22) of the cases. The range of 40-59 repeats was safe: there were no fetal full mutations. The risk of full mutation was also low among the subjects with a repeat size between 60 and 80, whereas the risk increased significantly after 80 repeats. Maternal premutation size was positively correlated with the risk of having a full mutation offspring.

Fragile X syndrome and fragile XE mental retardation

There are two forms of mental handicap associated with fragile sites on the end of the long arm of the X chromosome. The well known common disorder Fragile X syndrome is associated with FRAXA and a rare non-specific form of mental handicap is associated with FRAXE. The cytogenetics of these fragile sites is considered. For Fragile X syndrome details are given of the molecular genetics, inheritance patterns, genetic counselling, methods for diagnosis of index cases, carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis. Series of prenatal diagnoses are briefly reviewed and technical and biological problems associated with this procedure are considered. Prenatal diagnosis of Fragile X syndrome using molecular genetic techniques is now a well established procedure, with the only significant problem being the inability to accurately predict phenotype in female fetuses with full mutations. Few prenatal diagnoses of Fragile XE non-specific mental retardation have been recorded. In principle the technical aspects of such a prenatal diagnosis should be little different from those for Fragile X syndrome. Incomplete knowledge of the phenotypic effect of the full mutation in males and females would make phenotypic prediction for any fetus shown to have such a mutation very difficult. At this stage all that could be determined with precision is that the mutation was present or absent in the fetus. Possible consequences of this are discussed.

Fragile X founder effects and new mutations in Finland

The apparent associations between fragile X mutations and nearby microsatellites may reflect both founder effects and microsatellite instability. To gain further insight into their relative contributions, we typed a sample of 56 unrelated control and 37 fragile X chromosomes from an eastern Finnish population for FMR1 CGG repeat lengths, AGG interspersion patterns, DXS548, FRAXAC1, FRAXE and a new polymorphic locus, Alu-L. In the controls, the most common FMR1 allele was 30 repeats with a range of 20 to 47 and a calculated heterozygosity of 88%. A strong founder effect was observed for locus DXS548 with 95% of fragile X chromosomes having the 21 CA repeat (196 bp) allele compared to 17% of controls, while none of the fragile X but 69% of controls had the 20 repeat allele. Although the FRAXAC1 locus is much closer than DXS548 to FMR1 (7 kb vs. 150 kb), there was no significant difference between fragile X and control FRAXAC1 allele distributions. The FRAXE repeat, located 600 kb distal to FMR1, was found to show strong linkage disequilibrium as well. A newly defined polymorphism, Alu-L, located at approximately 40 kb distal to the FMR1 repeat, showed very low polymorphism in the Finnish samples. Analysis of the combined loci DXS548-FRAXAC1-FRAXE showed three founder haplotypes. Haplotype 21-19-16 was found on 27 (75%) of fragile X chromosomes but on none of controls. Three (8.4%) fragile X chromosomes had haplotypes 21-19-15, 21-19-20, and 21-19-25 differing from the common fragile X haplotype only in FRAXE. These could have arisen by recombination or from mutations of FRAXE. A second haplotype 21-18-17 was found in four (11.1%) fragile X chromosomes but only one (1.9%) control. This may represent a more recent founder mutation. A third haplotype 25-21-15, seen in two fragile X chromosomes (5.6%) and one (1.9%) control, was even less common and thus may represent an even more recent mutation or admixture of immigrant types. Analysis of the AGG interspersions within the FMR1 CGG repeat showed that 7/8 premutation chromosomes lacked an AGG whereas all controls had at least one AGG. This supports the hypothesis that the mutation of AGG to CGG leads to repeat instability and mutational expansion.