Genetic testing in fetuses with isolated agenesis of the corpus callosum

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to explore genetics pathogenesis of isolated agenesis of corpus callosum (ACC) and assess the utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for genetic diagnosis of isolated ACC.

METHODS

We analyzed the genomes of 16 fetuses with isolated ACC using Afymetrix CytoScan HD arrays and conducted further bioinformatic analysis for one proband fetus with an abnormal copy number variation (CNV).

RESULTS

Of the 16 fetal samples examined, two (12.5%) had pathogenic CNVs and three (18.75%) had variants of unknown significance. Two cases, case 2 and case 9, were found to have pathogenic CNVs. Bioinformatic analyses indicated that the CNV of one fetus (case 9) contained 115 annotated coding genes, five of which (SLC6A5, BDNF, ELP4, PAX6, and SLC1A2) have been associated with neurodevelopment. Three of these genes (SLC1A2, BDNF, and PAX6) may play a key role in ACC development. GO cluster analysis of the implicated genes revealed strong representations of protein binding and metal ion binding functions. KEGG pathway analysis pointed to four pathways: longevity regulating pathway, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cocaine addiction, and autophagy-animal.

CONCLUSIONS

BDNF, SLC1A2, and PAX6 may be involved in the development of isolated ACC. CMA is a feasible technology for prenatal diagnosis of isolated ACC.

Comparison of quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and karyotype analysis for prenatal screening of chromosomal aneuploidies in 270 amniotic fluid samples

Background Quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) technique is a rapid prenatal aneuploidy detection method. This method can diagnose abnormality in chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Karyotyping is a technique in which, by the process of pairing and painting, all the chromosomes of an organism are displayed under a microscope. In the present study, a statistical comparison was made between karyotyping and QF-PCR for prenatal diagnosis. Methods A total of 270 samples were tested for QF-PCR and the results were compared with karyotyping. We also investigated heterozygosity of short tandem repeat (STR) markers by QF-PCR. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples (n = 270) were extracted from amniotic fluid (AF) cells. After PCR amplifications, analysis was performed using GeneMarker. A Devyser QF-PCR kit containing 26 primers was used to estimate the observed heterozygosity of STR markers located on chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Results The results of karyotyping and QF-PCR were as follows: trisomy 13 (one case), trisomy 18 (five cases), trisomy 21 (five cases) and triploidy (one case). Chromosomal rearrangements and mosaicisms were not detected by QF-PCR but were detected by karyotyping. Maternal cell contamination (MCC) made the karyotyping fail but not the QF-PCR. Conclusion The QF-PCR method is especially important because it is fast, accurate, low cost and has a short turnaround time. This method will avoid ambiguity of karyotype results and parental anxiety. It will also shorten clinical management for high-risk families.