Malgorzata I. Srebniak

Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: Implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow

We report on the validation and implementation of the HumanCytoSNP-12 array (Illumina) (HCS) in prenatal diagnosis. In total, 64 samples were used to validate the Illumina platform (20 with a known (sub) microscopic chromosome abnormality, 5 with known maternal cell contamination (MCC) and 39 normal control samples). There were no false-positive or false-negative results. In addition to the diagnostic possibilities of arrayCGH, the HCS allows detection of regions of homozygosity (ROH), triploidy and helps recognising MCC. Moreover, in two cases of MCC, a deletion was correctly detected. Furthermore we found out that only about 50 ng of DNA is required, which allows a reporting time of only 3 days. We also present a prospective pilot study of 61 fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype tested with HCS. In 4 out of 61 (6.5%) fetuses, a clinically relevant abnormality was detected. We designed and present pre-test genetic counselling information on categories of possible test outcomes. On the basis of this information, about 90% of the parents chose to be informed about adverse health outcomes of their future child at infancy and childhood, and 55% also about outcomes at an adult stage. The latter issue regarding the right of the future child itself to decide whether or not to know this information needs to be addressed.

Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature

To establish the prevalence of submicroscopic genetic copy number variants (CNVs) in fetuses with a structural ultrasound anomaly (restricted to one anatomical system) and a normal karyotype. The aim was to determine the diagnostic and prognostic value of genomic array testing in these pregnancies.

Genomic SNP array as a gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of foetal ultrasound abnormalities

BackgroundWe have investigated whether replacing conventional karyotyping by SNP array analysis in cases of foetal ultrasound abnormalities would increase the diagnostic yield and speed of prenatal diagnosis in clinical practice.Findings/resultsFrom May 2009 till June 2011 we performed HumanCytoSNP-12 array (HCS) (http://www.Illumina.com) analysis in 207 cases of foetal structural abnormalities. HCS allows detecting unbalanced genomic abnormalities with a resolution of about 150/200 kb. All cases were selected by a clinical geneticist after excluding the most common aneuploidies by RAD (rapid aneuploidy detection). Pre-test genetic counselling was offered in all cases.In 24/207 (11,6%) foetuses a clinically relevant genetic abnormality was detected. Only 8/24 abnormalities would have been detected if only routine karyotyping was performed. Submicroscopic abnormalities were found in 16/207 (7,7%) cases. The array results were achieved within 1-2 weeks after amniocentesis.ConclusionsPrenatal SNP array testing is faster than karyotyping and allows detecting much smaller aberrations (~0.15 Mb) in addition to the microscopic unbalanced chromosome abnormalities detectable with karyotyping (~ > 5 Mb). Since karyotyping would have missed 66% (16/24) of genomic abnormalities in our cohort, we propose to perform genomic high resolution array testing assisted by pre-test counselling as a primary prenatal diagnostic test in cases of foetal ultrasound abnormalities.

Phenotypic variability of atypical 22q11.2 deletions not including TBX1

Interstitial deletions of the chromosome 22q11.2 region are the most common microdeletions in humans. The TBX1 gene is considered to be the major candidate gene for the main features in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, including congenital heart malformations, (para)thyroid hypoplasia, and craniofacial abnormalities. We report on eight patients with atypical deletions of chromosome 22q11.2. These deletions comprise the distal part of the common 22q11.2 deleted region but do not encompass the TBX1 gene. Ten similar patients with overlapping distal 22q11.2 deletions have been reported previously. The clinical features of these patients are described and compared to those found in the classic 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. We discuss the possible roles of a position effect or haploinsufficiency of distally located genes (e.g., CRKL) in the molecular pathogenesis of the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification

Types of array findings detectable in cytogenetic diagnosis: a proposal for a generic classification

Benefits and burdens of using a SNP array in pregnancies at increased risk for the common aneuploidies.

We present the nature of pathogenic SNP array findings in pregnancies without ultrasound (US) abnormalities and show the additional diagnostic value of SNP array as compared with rapid aneuploidy detection and karyotyping. 1,330 prenatal samples were investigated with a 0.5‐Mb SNP array after the exclusion of the most common aneuploidies. In 2.7% (36/1,330) of the cases, pathogenic chromosome aberrations were found; a microscopically detectable abnormality in 0.7% and a submicroscopic aberration in 2%. Our results show that in addition to the age‐ or screening‐related aneuploidy risk, in pregnancies without US abnormalities, there is a risk of 1:148 (9/1,330) for a (sub)microscopic abnormality associated with an early‐onset often severe disease, 1:222 (6/1,330) for a submicroscopic aberration causing an early‐onset disease, 1:74 (18/1,330) for carrying a susceptibility locus for a neurodevelopmental disorder, and 1:443 (3/1,330) for a late‐onset disorder (hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies in all three cases). These risk figures are important for adequate pretest counseling so that prospective parents can make informed individualized choices between targeted prenatal testing and broad testing with SNP array. Based on our results, we believe if invasive testing is performed, SNP array should be the preferred cytogenetic technique irrespective of the indication.

Chromosome abnormalities without phenotypic consequences

Some changes in chromosome morphology, detected during cytogenetic analysis, are not associated with clinical defects. Therefore a proper discrimination of harmless variants from true abnormalities, especially during prenatal diagnosis, is crucial to allow precise counseling. In this review we described chromosome variants and examples of chromosome anomalies that are considered to be unrelated to phenotypic consequences. The correlation between the presence of marker chromosomes and a risk of clinical signs is also discussed. Structural rearrangements of heterochromatic material, satellite polymorphism, or fragile sites, are well-known examples of common chromosome variation. However, the absence of clinical effects has also been reported in some cases of chromosome abnormalities concerning euchromatin. Such euchromatic anomalies were divided into 2 categories: unbalanced chromosome abnormalities (UBCAs), such as deletions or duplications, and euchromatic variants (EVs). Recently so-calledmolecular karyotyping, especially whole-genome screening by the use of high-resolution array-CGH technique, contributed to revealing a high number of previously unknown small genomic variations, which seem to be asymptomatic, as they are present in phenotypically normal individuals.

Abnormal non‐invasive prenatal test results concordant with karyotype of cytotrophoblast but not reflecting abnormal fetal karyotype

We present a unique case in which non‐invasive and invasive prenatal diagnoses showed abnormal, but discordant, results. A patient with abnormal non‐invasive prenatal test (NIPT) results, indicating a 99% risk for monosomy X, was referred to our center for genetic counseling and confirmatory studies. Cytogenetic analysis of uncultured mesenchymal core of chorionic villi (CV) revealed a mosaic male karyotype consisting of two abnormal cell lines: one with monosomy X and the other with an isodicentric chromosome Y. Array analysis of the trophoblast confirmed the NIPT results. Based on the CV results, the patient opted for termination of pregnancy. After extensive counseling by a clinical geneticist about the possible outcomes and by a gynecologist about the risk of a second‐trimester abortion procedure, the patient agreed to undergo early amniocentesis. Amniocentesis confirmed that the fetus had a male karyotype with an isodicentric chromosome Y, and the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array profile suggested absence of the monosomy X cell line. The male infant was expected to be infertile. The patient finally decided to continue the pregnancy. Our case confirms that NIPT results are comparable with those of short‐term cultured CV investigating the cytotrophoblast. Our patient was not aware that the NIPT results reveal the placental karyotype, which sometimes may be different from the fetal karyotype. Pretest counseling and providing the risk figures for false‐positive and false‐negative NIPT results are of great importance in order to discourage women from terminating pregnancies based on NIPT results alone. Copyright

Prenatal SNP array testing in 1000 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: causative, unexpected and susceptibility CNVs

To evaluate the diagnostic value of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array testing in 1033 fetuses with ultrasound anomalies we investigated the prevalence and genetic nature of pathogenic findings. We reclassified all pathogenic findings into three categories: causative findings; unexpected diagnoses (UD); and susceptibility loci (SL) for neurodevelopmental disorders. After exclusion of trisomy 13, 18, 21, sex-chromosomal aneuploidy and triploidies, in 76/1033 (7.4%) fetuses a pathogenic chromosome abnormality was detected by genomic SNP array: in 19/1033 cases (1.8%) a microscopically detectable abnormality was found and in 57/1033 (5.5%) fetuses a pathogenic submicroscopic chromosome abnormality was detected. 58% (n=44) of all these pathogenic chromosome abnormalities involved a causative finding, 35% (n=27) a SL for neurodevelopmental disorder, and 6% (n=5) a UD of an early-onset untreatable disease. In 0.3% of parental samples an incidental pathogenic finding was encountered. Our results confirm that a genomic array should be the preferred first-tier technique in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies. All UDs involved early-onset diseases, which is beneficial for the patients to know. It also seems that UDs occur at a comparable frequency among microscopic and submicroscopic pathogenic findings. SL were more often detected than in pregnancies without ultrasound anomalies.

0.5 Mb array as a first-line prenatal cytogenetic test in cases without ultrasound abnormalities and its implementation in clinical practice.

Using whole‐genome array testing instead of karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis for all indications may be desirable because of the higher diagnostic yield and shorter reporting time. The goal of this research was finding the optimal array resolution that could replace routine prenatal karyotyping in cases without ultrasound abnormalities, for example, referred for advanced maternal age or abnormal first trimester screening. As variants of unknown clinical significance (VOUS), if reported, might complicate decision‐making about continuation of pregnancy, such an optimal array resolution should have a high abnormality detection rate and reveal a minimal amount of VOUS. The array data of 465 fetuses were retrospectively evaluated with several resolution levels, and the Decipher microdeletion/microduplication syndrome list was reviewed to assess what could be theoretically missed with a lower resolution. A 0.5‐Mb resolution showed a high diagnostic yield potential and significantly minimized the number of VOUS. Based on our experience, we recommend genomic SNP array as a first‐tier test in prenatal diagnosis. The resolution should be chosen based on the indication. In cases of fetal ultrasound abnormalities or intrauterine fetal death (IUFD), high‐resolution analysis should be done. In other cases, we advise replacing karyotyping by SNP array analysis with 0.5 Mb resolution.