Rapid positive confirmation of trisomy 21 mosaicism at amniocentesis by interphase FISH, QF-PCR and aCGH on uncultured amniocytes

Application of various genetic analysis techniques for detecting two rare cases of 9p duplication mosaicism during prenatal diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The identification of genetic mosaicism and the genetic counseling needed following its discovery have been challenging problems in the field of prenatal diagnosis. Herein, we describe the clinical phenotypes and various prenatal diagnostic processes used for two rare cases of 9p duplication mosaicism and review the prior literature in the field to evaluate the merits of different methods for diagnosing mosaic 9p duplication.

METHODS

We recorded ultrasound examinations, reported the screening and diagnosis pathways, and analyzed the mosaic levels of the two cases of 9p duplication using karyotype analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis (FISH).

RESULTS

Case 1 had a normal clinical phenotype for tetrasomy 9p mosaicism, and Case 2 showed multiple malformations caused by both trisomy 9 and trisomy 9p mosaicism. Both cases were initially suspected after non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT) based on cell-free DNA. The mosaic ratio of 9p duplication found via karyotyping was lower than what was discovered by CMA and FISH, in both cases. Contrary to previous findings, the mosaic level of trisomy 9 found by karyotype analysis was greater than what was found by CMA, in terms of complex mosaicism involving trisomy 9 and trisomy 9p, in Case 2.

CONCLUSION

NIPT can indicate 9p duplication mosaicism during prenatal screening. Different strengths and limitations existed in terms of diagnosing mosaic 9p duplication by karyotype analysis, CMA, and FISH. The combined use of various methods may be capable of more accurately determining break-points and mosaic levels of 9p duplication during prenatal diagnosis.

The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G-banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray.

RESULT

Thirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases.

CONCLUSION

Both karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis.

Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: A 13-year retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to summarize the experience on prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study includes a retrospective data analysis of 157 prenatally detected cases of Down syndrome, routinely diagnosed among 6448 prenatal investigations performed during a 13-year period (2002-2014) in a single tertiary center.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diagnosed Down syndrome cases was 2.4%. Maternal age alone was indication for prenatal diagnosis in 47 cases (45.2%), increased first-/second-trimester biochemical screening test in 34 cases (21.7%), abnormal ultrasound examination in 69 cases (43.9%), positive familial history for chromosomal abnormalities in four cases, and high risk for trisomy 21 revealed by cell-free DNA testing in three cases. Ultrasound anomalies were present in total of 94 fetuses (59.8%). The most common abnormality was cystic hygroma found in 46 cases (29.3%). A regular form of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) was found in 147 cases (93.6%), Robertsonian translocation in six cases (3.8%), and mosaic form in four cases (2.6%).

CONCLUSION

In prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome noninvasive screening methods are important for estimation of individual risks, in both, young population of woman and older mothers, while conventional and molecular cytogenetic methods are essential for definite diagnosis and proper genetic counseling.