Comparison of modes of ascertainment for mosaic vs complete trisomy 21

Prenatal diagnosis of maternal uniparental disomy 21 in association with low-level mosaic trisomy 21 at amniocentesis in a pregnancy associated with intrauterine growth restriction and a favorable outcome

OBJECTIVE

We present prenatal diagnosis of maternal uniparental disomy (UPD) 21 in association with low-level mosaic trisomy 21 at amniocentesis in a pregnancy associated with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and a favorable outcome.

CASE REPORT

A 42-year-old, gravida 2, para 0, woman underwent amniocentesis at 17 weeks of gestation because of advanced maternal age. Amniocentesis initially revealed a karyotype of 46,XX in 20/20 colonies of cultured amniocytes. Simultaneous array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis on uncultured amniocytes revealed a result of arr [GRCh37] (21) × 3 [0.16], (X) × 2, compatible with mosaic trisomy 21. After extensive investigation, the final result of conventional cytogenetic analysis of cultured amniocytes was 47,XX,+21[1]/46,XX[40]. The parental karyotypes were normal. Repeat amniocentesis was performed at 21 weeks of gestation. The cultured amniocytes had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[3]/46,XX[27] and the uncultured amniocytes had a mosaic trisomy 21 level of 8.8% (10/114 cells) by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), a mosaic trisomy 21 level of 10% (log₂ ratio = 0.08) by aCGH, and maternal UPD 21 by polymorphic DNA marker analysis. Prenatal ultrasound revealed IUGR. At 38 weeks of gestation, a phenotypically normal 2695-g baby was delivered. The cord blood and umbilical cord had the karyotype of 46,XX and maternal UPD 21. The placenta had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[8]/46,XX[32] and a maternal origin of trisomy 21. Postnatal FISH analysis on 101 buccal mucosal cells showed 6.9% (7/101 cells) mosaicism compared with 2% (2/100 cells) in the normal control. The baby was doing well at age four months.

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy with low-level mosaic trisomy 21 and maternal UPD 21 at amniocentesis can be associated with IUGR and a favorable outcome. Fetuses with maternal UPD 21 can be associated with mosaic trisomy 21 at amniocentesis.

A transchromosomic rat model with human chromosome 21 shows robust Down syndrome features

Progress in earlier detection and clinical management has increased life expectancy and quality of life in people with Down syndrome (DS). However, no drug has been approved to help individuals with DS live independently and fully. Although rat models could support more robust physiological, behavioral, and toxicology analysis than mouse models during preclinical validation, no DS rat model is available as a result of technical challenges. We developed a transchromosomic rat model of DS, TcHSA21rat, which contains a freely segregating, EGFP-inserted, human chromosome 21 (HSA21) with >93% of its protein-coding genes. RNA-seq of neonatal forebrains demonstrates that TcHSA21rat expresses HSA21 genes and has an imbalance in global gene expression. Using EGFP as a marker for trisomic cells, flow cytometry analyses of peripheral blood cells from 361 adult TcHSA21rat animals show that 81% of animals retain HSA21 in >80% of cells, the criterion for a "Down syndrome karyotype" in people. TcHSA21rat exhibits learning and memory deficits and shows increased anxiety and hyperactivity. TcHSA21rat recapitulates well-characterized DS brain morphology, including smaller brain volume and reduced cerebellar size. In addition, the rat model shows reduced cerebellar foliation, which is not observed in DS mouse models. Moreover, TcHSA21rat exhibits anomalies in craniofacial morphology, heart development, husbandry, and stature. TcHSA21rat is a robust DS animal model that can facilitate DS basic research and provide a unique tool for preclinical validation to accelerate DS drug development.

Prenatal diagnosis of low-level mosaicism for trisomy 21 by amniocentesis in a pregnancy associated with maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 21 in the fetus and a favorable outcome

OBJECTIVE

We present perinatal molecular cytogenetic analysis of low-level mosaicism for trisomy 21 in a pregnancy with maternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 21 in the fetus.

CASE REPORT

A 39-year-old woman underwent amniocentesis at 17 weeks of gestation because of advanced maternal age. Amniocentesis revealed a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[6]/46,XX[25]. Simultaneous array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis on the DNA extracted from uncultured amniocytes revealed arr (21) × 2-3, (X) × 2 with about 18% gene dosage increase in chromosome 21 consistent with mosaic trisomy 21. Cordocentesis was performed at 20 weeks of gestation, and the cord blood lymphocytes had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[3]/46,XX[72]. Prenatal ultrasound findings were unremarkable. After genetic counseling, the parents decided to continue the pregnancy. At 39 weeks of gestation, a 3,494-g phenotypically normal female baby was delivered without phenotypic features of Down syndrome. There was no dysplasia of middle phalanx of the fifth fingers of both hands. The cord blood had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[2]/46,XX[48]. The placenta had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[37]/46,XX[3]. The umbilical cord had a karyotype of 47,XX,+21[1]/46,XX[39]. aCGH analysis on the DNA extracted from cord blood revealed no genomic imbalance. Polymorphic DNA marker analysis on the DNAs extracted from cord blood and parental bloods revealed maternal uniparental heterodisomy 21 in the baby. Interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis on buccal mucosal cells revealed trisomy 21 signals in 15/101 (14.9%) buccal cells at birth and in 1/122 (0.82%) buccal cells at age 45 days.

CONCLUSION

Low-level mosaicism for trisomy 21 at amniocentesis associated with maternal UPD 21 in the fetus can have a favorable outcome.

Whether to transfer mosaic embryos: a cytogenetic view of true mosaicism by amniocentesis

RESEARCH QUESTION

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies has increasingly been employed for embryo selection, resulting in a recent surge in mosaic embryos. According to the cytogenetic results, which types of mosaic embryo survive early pregnancy, progress to the second trimester and finally result in a live birth?

DESIGN

This study evaluated 30,587 pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis from January 2004 to March 2020 at the cytogenic centre of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Samples from amniocentesis were cultured using the in-situ method. The types and distribution of level III chromosomal mosaicism (two or more cells with the same abnormality in two or more colonies and both culture dishes, clinically referred to as 'true mosaicism') were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Among the 30,587 women, 78 cases (0.26%) of level III chromosomal mosaicism were identified. The types of chromosomal mosaicism were classified as sex chromosome mosaicism (SCM), autosomal chromosome mosaicism (ACM) and marker chromosome mosaicism (MCM), with SCM, ACM and MCM accounting for 58.97%, 32.05% and 8.97% of cases, respectively. The most common mosaic cell lines were monosomy X and trisomy 21. The most common mosaic cell line progressing to live birth was monosomy X.

CONCLUSIONS

Mosaic monosomy X and trisomy 21 are the most common cell lines of true mosaicism determined by amniocentesis. Monosomy X mosaicism is the most common cell line in live births. For women considering the transfer of these types of mosaic embryo in a circumstance where euploid embryos are unavailable, clinicians should provide careful prenatal counselling, detailed ultrasonography and amniocentesis.

First trimester ultrasound tests alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester ultrasound markers alone, and in combination with first trimester serum tests for the detection of Down's syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out extensive literature searches including MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), and The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7). We checked reference lists and published review articles for additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating tests of first trimester ultrasound screening, alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests (up to 14 weeks' gestation) for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 126 studies (152 publications) involving 1,604,040 fetuses (including 8454 Down's syndrome cases). Studies were generally good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Sixty test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of 11 different ultrasound markers (nuchal translucency (NT), nasal bone, ductus venosus Doppler, maxillary bone length, fetal heart rate, aberrant right subclavian artery, frontomaxillary facial angle, presence of mitral gap, tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid blood flow and iliac angle 90 degrees); 12 serum tests (inhibin A, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (ßhCG), total hCG, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), disintegrin and metalloprotease 12 (ADAM 12), placental growth factor (PlGF), placental growth hormone (PGH), invasive trophoblast antigen (ITA) (synonymous with hyperglycosylated hCG), growth hormone binding protein (GHBP) and placental protein 13 (PP13)); and maternal age. The most frequently evaluated serum markers in combination with ultrasound markers were PAPP-A and free ßhCG.Comparisons of the 10 most frequently evaluated test strategies showed that a combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy significantly outperformed ultrasound markers alone (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). In both direct and indirect comparisons, the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy showed superior diagnostic accuracy to an NT and maternal age test strategy (P < 0.0001). Based on the indirect comparison of all available studies for the two tests, the sensitivity (95% confidence interval) estimated at a 5% FPR for the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy (69 studies; 1,173,853 fetuses including 6010 with Down's syndrome) was 87% (86 to 89) and for the NT and maternal age test strategy (50 studies; 530,874 fetuses including 2701 Down's syndrome pregnancies) was 71% (66 to 75). Combinations of NT with other ultrasound markers, PAPP-A and free ßhCG were evaluated in one or two studies and showed sensitivities of more than 90% and specificities of more than 95%.High-risk populations (defined before screening was done, mainly due to advanced maternal age of 35 years or more, or previous pregnancies affected with Down's syndrome) showed lower detection rates compared to routine screening populations at a 5% FPR. Women who miscarried in the over 35 group were more likely to have been offered an invasive test to verify a negative screening results, whereas those under 35 were usually not offered invasive testing for a negative screening result. Pregnancy loss in women under 35 therefore leads to under-ascertainment of screening results, potentially missing a proportion of affected pregnancies and affecting test sensitivity. Conversely, for the NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy, detection rates and false positive rates increased with maternal age in the five studies that provided data separately for the subset of women aged 35 years or more.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Test strategies that combine ultrasound markers with serum markers, especially PAPP-A and free ßhCG, and maternal age were significantly better than those involving only ultrasound markers (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone. They detect about nine out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. Although the absence of nasal bone appeared to have a high diagnostic accuracy, only five out of 10 affected Down's pregnancies were detected at a 1% FPR.

First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.  Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (the Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), the Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), the National Research Register (Archived 2007), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.

First trimester serum tests for Down's syndrome screening

BACKGROUND

Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Noninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. However, no test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester serum markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, both as individual markers and as combinations of markers. Accuracy is described by the proportion of fetuses with Down's syndrome detected by screening before birth (sensitivity or detection rate) and the proportion of women with a low risk (normal) screening test result who subsequently had a baby unaffected by Down's syndrome (specificity).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (Archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did forward citation searching ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We also searched reference lists and published review articles.  

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which all women from a given population had one or more index test(s) compared to a reference standard (either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection). Both consecutive series and diagnostic case-control study designs were included. Randomised trials where individuals were randomised to different screening strategies and all verified using a reference standard were also eligible for inclusion. Studies in which test strategies were compared head-to-head either in the same women, or between randomised groups were identified for inclusion in separate comparisons of test strategies. We excluded studies if they included less than five Down's syndrome cases, or more than 20% of participants were not followed up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods or random-effects logistic regression methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy as appropriate. Analyses of studies allowing direct and indirect comparisons between tests were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 56 studies (reported in 68 publications) involving 204,759 pregnancies (including 2113 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. We evaluated 78 test combinations formed from combinations of 18 different tests, with or without maternal age; ADAM12 (a disintegrin and metalloprotease), AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), inhibin, PAPP-A (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), free βhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), PlGF (placental growth factor), SP1 (Schwangerschafts protein 1), total hCG, progesterone, uE3 (unconjugated oestriol), GHBP (growth hormone binding protein), PGH (placental growth hormone), hyperglycosylated hCG, ProMBP (proform of eosinophil major basic protein), hPL (human placental lactogen), (free αhCG, and free ßhCG to AFP ratio. Direct comparisons between two or more tests were made in 27 studies.Meta-analysis of the nine best performing or frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a double marker combination of PAPP-A and free ßhCG significantly outperformed the individual markers (with or without maternal age) detecting about seven out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). Limited evidence suggested that marker combinations involving PAPP-A may be more sensitive than those without PAPP-A.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tests involving two markers in combination with maternal age, specifically PAPP-A, free βhCG and maternal age are significantly better than those involving single markers with and without age. They detect seven out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. The addition of further markers (triple tests) has not been shown to be statistically superior; the studies included are small with limited power to detect a difference.The screening blood tests themselves have no adverse effects for the woman, over and above the risks of a routine blood test. However some women who have a 'high risk' screening test result, and are given amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) have a risk of miscarrying a baby unaffected by Down's. Parents will need to weigh up this risk when deciding whether or not to have an amniocentesis or CVS following a 'high risk' screening test result.

Postnatal Identification of Trisomy 21: An Overview of 7,133 Postnatal Trisomy 21 Cases Identified in a Diagnostic Reference Laboratory in China

This study describes the cytogenetic characteristics of 7,133 trisomy 21 (Tri21) identified from 247,818 consecutive postnatal cases karyotyped in a single reference laboratory in China for a period of 4 years. The average detection rate of Tri21 is 2.88% ranging from 3.39% in 2011 to 2.52% in 2014. The decreased detection rates over the years might reflect a possible impact of noninvasive prenatal testing applied rapidly in China and elective termination of affected pregnancies. 95.32% of the Tri21 karyotypes are standard Tri21, 4.53% are Robertsonian Tri21, and less than 1% are other Tri21 forms. There are more mosaic Tri21 in older children and adults, consistent with previous observations that clinical features in individuals with mosaic Tri21 are generally milder and easily missed during perinatal period. The male/female (M/F ratio) for the total 7,133 Tri21 cases and for the 6,671 cases with non-mosaic standard Tri21 are 1.50 and 1.53 respectively, significantly higher than the 0.93 for all the 247,818 cases we karyotyped, the 1.30 for the Down syndrome (DS) identified during perinatal period in China, and the 1.20 for the livebirth in Chinese population. In contrast, the mosaic standard Tri21 case has a significantly lower proportion of males when compared with the non-mosaic standard Tri21, indicating different underlying mechanisms leading to their formations. Opposite M/F ratios in different subtypes of ROB Tri21 were observed. A long list of rare or private karyotypes where Tri21 are concurrently present was identified. The large collection of Tri21 cases with a diversity of clinical findings and a wide age range allowed us to determine the frequency of the different karyotypes of Down syndrome in China, given the fact that this kind of national epidemiological data is lacking currently.

Mosaicism for trisomy 21: a review

The clinical and cytogenetic findings associated with mosaicism for trisomy 21/Down syndrome are the focus of this review. The primary topics discussed in this overview of the extant literature include the history of this condition and its diagnosis, the incidence of mosaicism, the meiotic and/or mitotic chromosomal malsegregation events resulting in mosaicism, the observation of mosaicism in the parents of children with the non-mosaic form of Down syndrome, and the variation in phenotypic outcome for both constitutional and acquired traits present in people with mosaicism for trisomy 21/Down syndrome, including cognition, fertility, and overall phenotypic findings. Additional topics reviewed include the social conditions of people with mosaicism, as well as age-related and epigenetic alterations observed in people with mosaicism for trisomy 21/Down syndrome. .

Germinal and Somatic Trisomy 21 Mosaicism: How Common is it, What are the Implications for Individual Carriers and How Does it Come About?

It is well known that varying degrees of mosaicism for Trisomy 21, primarily a combination of normal and Trisomy 21 cells within individual tissues, may exist in the human population. This involves both Trisomy 21 mosaicism occurring in the germ line and Trisomy 21 mosaicism documented in different somatic tissues, or indeed a combination of both in the same subjects. Information on the incidence of Trisomy 21 mosaicism in different tissue samples from people with clinical features of Down syndrome as well as in the general population is, however, still limited. One of the main reasons for this lack of detailed knowledge is the technological problem of its identification, where in particular low grade/cryptic Trisomy 21 mosaicism, i.e. occurring in less than 3-5% of the respective tissues, can only be ascertained by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods on large cell populations from the different tissue samples.In this review we summarize current knowledge in this field with special reference to the question on the likely incidence of germinal and somatic Trisomy 21 mosaicism in the general population and its mechanisms of origin. We also highlight the reproductive and clinical implications of this type of aneuploidy mosaicism for individual carriers. We conclude that the risk of begetting a child with Trisomy 21 Down syndrome most likely is related to the incidence of Trisomy 21 cells in the germ line of any carrier parent. The clinical implications for individual carriers may likewise be dependent on the incidence of Trisomy 21 in the relevant somatic tissues. Remarkably, for example, there are indications that Trisomy 21 mosaicism will predispose carriers to conditions such as childhood leukemia and Alzheimer's Disease but there is on the other hand a possibility that the risk of solid cancers may be substantially reduced.

Complete trisomy 21 vs translocation Down syndrome: a comparison of modes of ascertainment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the indications for invasive prenatal testing resulting in the detection of translocation Down syndrome and complete trisomy 21.

STUDY DESIGN

This case control study was based on a large amniocentesis and chorionic villi samples database (n = 534,795). All specimens with translocation Down syndrome (n = 203) comprised the translocation group and were compared with a maternal age-matched group (4 to 1, n = 812) in which complete trisomy 21 was detected. Women with a normal karyotype were randomly selected (n = 812) and served as controls. Indications for invasive testing were compared among the 3 paired groups using χ(2) analysis.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the incidence of abnormal first- and second-trimester screening tests between the translocation Down syndrome and the complete trisomy 21 groups. History of prior aneuploidy was significantly more frequent in the translocation Down syndrome group, as compared with either complete trisomy 21 fetuses or normal controls.

CONCLUSION

Fetuses with translocation Down syndrome present with the same screening abnormalities as fetuses with complete trisomy 21.