Sandra Darilek

Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases.

To evaluate the use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis, including assessment of variants of uncertain significance, and the ability to detect abnormalities not detected by karyotype, and vice versa.

Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of using a targeted array-CGH strategy for prenatal diagnosis of genomic imbalances in a clinical setting of current pregnancies.Methods: Women undergoing prenatal diagnosis were counseled and offered array-CGH (BCM V4.0) in addition to routine chromosome analysis. Array-CGH was performed with DNA directly from amniotic fluid cells with whole genome amplification, on chorionic villus samples with amplification as necessary, and on cultured cells without amplification.Results: Ninety-eight pregnancies (56 amniotic fluid and 42 CVS specimens) were studied with complete concordance between karyotype and array results, including 5 positive cases with chromosomal abnormalities. There was complete concordance of array results for direct and cultured cell analysis in 57 cases tested by both methods. In 12 cases, the array detected copy number variation requiring testing of parental samples for optimal interpretation. Array-CGH results were available in an average of 6 and 16 days for direct and cultured cells, respectively. Patient acceptance of array-CGH testing was 74%.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using array-CGH for prenatal diagnosis, including reliance on direct analysis without culturing cells. Use of array-CGH should increase the detection of abnormalities relative to the risk, and is an option for an enhanced level of screening for chromosomal abnormalities in high risk pregnancies.

Pre- and postnatal genetic testing by array-comparative genomic hybridization: genetic counseling perspectives.

Recently, a new genetic test has been developed that allows a more detailed examination of the genome when compared with a standard chromosome analysis. Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH microarray; also known as chromosome microarray analysis) in effect, combines chromosome and fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses allowing detection not only of aneuploidies, but also of all known microdeletion and microduplication disorders, including telomere rearrangements. Since 2004, this testing has been available in the Medical Genetics Laboratory at Baylor College of Medicine for postnatal evaluation and diagnosis of individuals with suspected genomic disorders. Subsequently, to assess the feasibility of offering CGH microarray for prenatal diagnosis, a prospective study was conducted on 98 pregnancies in a clinical setting comparing the results obtained from array CGH with those obtained from a standard karyotype. This was followed by the availability of prenatal testing on a clinical basis in 2005. To date, we have analyzed over 8000 cases referred to our clinical laboratory, including approximately 300 prenatal cases. With the clinical introduction of any new testing strategy, and particularly one focused on genetic disorders, issues of patient education, result interpretation, and genetic counseling must be anticipated and strategies adopted to allow the implementation of the testing with maximum benefit and minimum risk. In this article, we describe our experience with over 8000 clinical prenatal and postnatal cases of CGH microarray ordered by our clinical service or referred to the Baylor Medical Genetics Laboratory and describe the strategies used to optimize patient and provider education, facilitate clinical interpretation of results, and provide counseling for unique clinical circumstances.

DNA sequence analysis of GJB2, encoding connexin 26: Observations from a population of hearing impaired cases and variable carrier rates, complex genotypes, and ethnic stratification of alleles among controls†

Mutations in GJB2 are associated with hereditary hearing loss. DNA sequencing of GJB2 in a cohort of hearing impaired patients and a multi‐ethnic control group is reported. Among 610 hearing impaired cases, 43 DNA sequence variations were identified in the coding region of GJB2 including 24 mutations, 8 polymorphisms, 3 unclassified variants (G4D, R127C, M163V), 1 controversial variant (V37I), and 7 novel variants (G12C, N14D, V63A, T86M, L132V, D159, 592_600delinsCAGTGTTCATGACATTC). Sixteen non‐coding sequence variations were also identified among cases including the IVS1+1A>G mutation, 2 polymorphisms, and 13 novel variants. A diagnosis of GJB2‐associated hearing loss was confirmed for 63 cases (10.3%). Heterozygous mutations were found in 39 cases (6.4%). Eleven cases carrying novel or unclassified variants (1.8 %) and 18 cases carrying the controversial V37I variant were identified (3%). In addition, 294 control subjects from 4 ethnic groups were sequenced for GJB2. Thirteen sequence variations in the coding region of GJB2 were identified among controls including 2 mutations, 6 polymorphisms, 2 unclassified variants (G4D, T123N), 1 controversial variant (V37I), and 2 novel variants (R127L, V207L). Nine sequence variations were identified among controls in the non‐coding regions in and around GJB2 exon 2. Of particular interest among controls were the variability in carrier rates and ethnic stratification of alleles, and the complex genotypes among Asians, 47% of whom carried two to four sequence variations in the coding region of GJB2. These data provide new information about carrier rates for GJB2‐based hearing loss in various ethnic groups and contribute to evaluation of the pathogenicity of the controversial V37I variant.

Hereditary multiple exostosis and pain.

This study was undertaken to characterize pain in individuals with hereditary multiple exostosis (HME). Two hundred ninety-three patients with HME completed a questionnaire designed to assess pain as well as its impact on their life. Eighty-four percent of participants reported having pain, indicating that pain is a real problem in HME. Of those with pain, 55.1% had generalized pain. Two factors were found to be associated with pain outcome: HME-related complications and surgery. Individuals who had HME-related complications were five times more likely to have pain, while those who had surgery were 3.8 more likely to have pain. No differences were found between males and females with respect to pain, surgery, or HME-related complications. The results of this study indicate that the number of individuals with HME who have pain has been underestimated and that pain is a problem that must be addressed when caring for individuals with HME.

Counseling Challenges with Variants of Uncertain Significance and Incidental Findings in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnosis.

Prenatal genetic screening and testing provides prospective parents information about the health of their fetus. It is offered to find or address an increased risk for chromosomal abnormalities or other genetic conditions in the fetus or to identify the cause of fetal structural abnormalities detected by prenatal imaging. Genome-wide tests, such as the already widely-used chromosomal microarray analysis and emerging diagnostic whole exome and whole genome sequencing, have improved the ability to detect clinically significant findings, but have also increased the chance of detecting incidental findings and variants of uncertain significance. There is an extensive ongoing discussion about optimal strategies for diagnostic laboratories to report such findings and for providers to communicate them with patients. While consensus opinions and guidelines are beginning to appear, they often exclude the prenatal setting, due to its unique set of challenging considerations. These include more limited knowledge of the impact of genetic variants when prospectively detected in an ongoing pregnancy, the absence or limitations of detecting clinically recognizable phenotypes at the time of testing and the different decision-making processes that will ensue from testing. In this review, we examine these challenges within the medical ethical framework unique to prenatal care.

A retrospective study of preimplantation embryos diagnosed with monosomy by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)

This report is a retrospective study of preimplantation embryos diagnosed with monosomy for chromosomes 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y on day 3 to determine the rate of true positives, false positives and/or mosaicism and to assess if these embryos are suitable for in vitro fertilization (IVF) transfer. In a one year period, 80 patients went through preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening (PGD-AS). Monosomy was diagnosed in 51 embryos. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was then performed on the blastomeres at day 5–7 with commercially available probes using the same probe set that initially identified monosomy for chromosomes 13, 16, 21 and 22 or chromosomes 15, 18, X and Y. Based on FISH analysis, the monosomy diagnosed during routine PGD-AS analysis was confirmed in 17 of the 51 embryos. A euploid result for the specific chromosomes tested was observed in 16 of the 51 embryos while mosaicism was found in the remaining 18 embryos. This results in an estimated false positive rate of 3.8% for a diagnosis of monosomy. Reanalysis of these embryos demonstrates that the majority of monosomy diagnoses represents true monosomy or mosaicism and should be excluded for transfer in IVF. Furthermore, improved understanding from recent emerging data regarding the fate of oocytes in women with advanced maternal age undergoing IVF to the development of early embryos may provide a valuable insight into the mechanism of chromosome mosaicism.

Offering Prenatal Screening in the Age of Genomic Medicine: A Practical Guide

AIMS In September, 2015, Mayo Clinic convened a panel of national thought leaders on prenatal screening, medical genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology practice. RESULTS During the 2-day symposium, participants discussed the implications of the shift toward broader prenatal screening using cell-free placental DNA in maternal serum (cfDNA screening). Key topics included challenges around the pace of change in the prenatal screening market, uncertainty around reimbursement, meeting the need for patient counseling, and potential challenges in interpreting and returning cfDNA screening results. INNOVATION Here, we describe the challenges discussed and offer clinical recommendations for practices who are working to meet them. CONCLUSION As the spread of prenatal genetic screening continues, providers will increasingly need to update their practice to accommodate new screening modalities.

DNA sequence analysis and genotype–phenotype assessment in 71 patients with syndromic hearing loss or auditory neuropathy

Objectives Aetiological assessment of 71 probands whose clinical presentation suggested a genetic syndrome or auditory neuropathy. Methods Sanger sequencing was performed on DNA isolated from peripheral blood or lymphoblastoid cell lines. Genes were selected for sequencing based on each patients clinical presentation and suspected diagnosis. Observed DNA sequence variations were assessed for pathogenicity by review of the scientific literature, and mutation and polymorphism databases, through the use of in silico tools including sorting intolerant from tolerant (SIFT) and polymorphism phenotyping (PolyPhen), and according to the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for the interpretation of DNA sequence variations. Novel DNA sequence variations were sought in controls. Results DNA sequencing of the coding and near-coding regions of genes relevant to each patients clinical presentation revealed 37 sequence variations of known or uncertain pathogenicity in 9 genes from 25 patients. 14 novel sequence variations were discovered. Assessment of phenotypes revealed notable findings in 9 patients. Conclusions DNA sequencing in patients whose clinical presentation suggested a genetic syndrome or auditory neuropathy provided opportunities for aetiological assessment and more precise genetic counselling of patients and families. The failure to identify a genetic aetiology in many patients in this study highlights the extreme heterogeneity of genetic hearing loss, the incompleteness of current knowledge of aetiologies of hearing loss, and the limitations of conventional DNA sequencing strategies that evaluate only coding and near-coding segments of genes.

Congenital heart defects and left ventricular non-compaction in males with loss-of-function variants in NONO

Background The non-POU domain containing octamer-binding gene (NONO) is located on chromosome Xq13.1 and encodes a member of a small family of RNA-binding and DNA-binding proteins that perform a variety of tasks involved in RNA synthesis, transcriptional regulation and DNA repair. Loss-of-function variants in NONO have been described as a cause of intellectual disability in males but have not been described in association with congenital heart defects or cardiomyopathy. In this article, we seek to further define the phenotypic consequences of NONO depletion in human subjects. Methods We searched a clinical database of over 6000 individuals referred for exome sequencing and over 60 000 individuals referred for CNV analysis. Results We identified two males with atrial and ventricular septal defects, left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC), developmental delay and intellectual disability, who harboured de novo, loss-of-function variants in NONO. We also identified a male infant with developmental delay, congenital brain anomalies and severe LVNC requiring cardiac transplantation, who inherited a single-gene deletion of NONO from his asymptomatic mother. Conclusions We conclude that in addition to global developmental delay and intellectual disability, males with loss-of-function variants in NONO may also be predisposed to developing congenital heart defects and LVNC with the penetrance of these cardiac-related problems being influenced by genetic, epigenetic, environmental or stochastic factors. Brain imaging of males with NONO deficiency may reveal structural defects with abnormalities of the corpus callosum being the most common. Although dysmorphic features vary between affected individuals, relative macrocephaly is a common feature.