Lin Shaobin, Huang Shufang, Ou Xueling, Gu Heng, Wang Yonghua, Li Ping, Zhou Yi
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 58 Zhong Shan Er Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong Province, China.
Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong Provincial People' Hospital, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong Province, China.
Mol Cytogenet. 2021 May 18;14(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s13039-021-00544-3.
Discordance between traditional cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic tests is rare but not uncommon. The explanation of discordance between two genetic methods is difficult but especially important for genetic counseling, particularly for prenatal genetic diagnosis.
Two unrelated fetuses were diagnosed with cardiac defects by prenatal ultrasound examination, and invasive cordocentesis was performed to obtain cord blood samples for prenatal genetic diagnosis. For both fetuses, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) detected a novel approximately 27-Mb mosaic duplication with a high copy number of approximately six to seven copies on chromosome 8q24.1q24.3 that was not identified by karyotyping. To exclude artificial errors and validate laboratory detection results, multiple procedures including copy number variation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and short tandem repeat and single-nucleotide polymorphism genotype comparison were performed, confirming the discordant results between CMA and karyotyping. The potential causes of discordance between CMA and karyotyping using fetal blood lymphocytes are discussed; we suggest that extrachromosomal DNA or cell-free DNA fragmentation originating from certain tumor tissues with 8q24.1q24.3 duplication might deserve further investigation.
This study may be helpful for prenatal evaluation and genetic counseling for subsequent patients with similar mosaic 8q24.1q24.3 duplications. Additionally, more cases and further research are needed to understand whether mosaic 8q24.1q24.3 duplication is associated with certain genetic disorders and to investigate the causes of discordance between molecular and morphological methods.
传统细胞遗传学检测与分子细胞遗传学检测结果不一致的情况虽罕见但并非不常见。解释两种基因检测方法结果不一致的原因较为困难,但对于遗传咨询,尤其是产前基因诊断而言,却尤为重要。
通过产前超声检查诊断出两名不相关胎儿患有心脏缺陷,并进行了侵入性脐血穿刺以获取脐血样本用于产前基因诊断。对于这两名胎儿,染色体微阵列分析(CMA)均检测到8号染色体q24.1q24.3区域存在一个新的约27Mb的嵌合重复,拷贝数约为6至7个高拷贝,而核型分析未识别出该重复。为排除人为误差并验证实验室检测结果,进行了包括拷贝数变异测序、荧光原位杂交以及短串联重复序列和单核苷酸多态性基因型比较等多项检测,证实了CMA与核型分析结果不一致。讨论了使用胎儿血淋巴细胞进行CMA和核型分析结果不一致的潜在原因;我们认为,源自某些具有8q24.1q24.3重复的肿瘤组织的染色体外DNA或游离DNA片段化可能值得进一步研究。
本研究可能有助于对后续患有类似8q24.1q24.3嵌合重复的患者进行产前评估和遗传咨询。此外,还需要更多病例和进一步研究,以了解8q24.1q24.3嵌合重复是否与某些遗传疾病相关,并探究分子和形态学方法结果不一致的原因。