S Steinberg1, S Katsanis, A Moser, G Cutting. 1. The Kennedy Krieger Institute and Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. steinbergs@kennedykrieger.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The prenatal diagnosis of peroxisomal disorders is most often performed by biochemical analysis of cultured chorionic villus sample (CVS) or amniocytes. We aimed to (a) highlight the risk of maternal cell contamination (MCC) in biochemical prenatal diagnosis, (b) establish the threshold of these biochemical assays to MCC, and (c) document the sensitivity of PCR based genotyping of microsatellites for the detection of MCC in prenatal diagnosis of inborn errors by biochemical analysis. METHODS: The threshold of each biochemical assay was assessed by co-cultivating fibroblasts from known affected and normal individuals. Genotypes for three polymorphic loci were determined by PCR and GeneScan analysis. The sensitivity of the molecular test was determined by DNA mixing experiments and isolation of DNA from co-cultivated fibroblasts. RESULTS: MCC was detected in 2.5% of at risk CVS cultures (n = 79). Co-cultivation of defective and normal fibroblasts demonstrated that the peroxisomal biochemical assays were accurate at 25% contamination. Very low level DNA or cell contamination (1-5%) was detectable by genotyping, but an allele did not yield a definitive peak based on morphology until approximately 10% contamination. Furthermore, we demonstrated that other inborn errors of metabolism might be more susceptible to diagnostic error by low level MCC. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of the microsatellite analysis (> or =10%) is well within the threshold of peroxisomal biochemical assays. Although peroxisomal biochemical assays would not be predicted to introduce a false positive or negative result if MCC <10% were present but not recognised by molecular analysis, the same may not be true for other inborn errors of metabolism.
OBJECTIVES: The prenatal diagnosis of peroxisomal disorders is most often performed by biochemical analysis of cultured chorionic villus sample (CVS) or amniocytes. We aimed to (a) highlight the risk of maternal cell contamination (MCC) in biochemical prenatal diagnosis, (b) establish the threshold of these biochemical assays to MCC, and (c) document the sensitivity of PCR based genotyping of microsatellites for the detection of MCC in prenatal diagnosis of inborn errors by biochemical analysis. METHODS: The threshold of each biochemical assay was assessed by co-cultivating fibroblasts from known affected and normal individuals. Genotypes for three polymorphic loci were determined by PCR and GeneScan analysis. The sensitivity of the molecular test was determined by DNA mixing experiments and isolation of DNA from co-cultivated fibroblasts. RESULTS: MCC was detected in 2.5% of at risk CVS cultures (n = 79). Co-cultivation of defective and normal fibroblasts demonstrated that the peroxisomal biochemical assays were accurate at 25% contamination. Very low level DNA or cell contamination (1-5%) was detectable by genotyping, but an allele did not yield a definitive peak based on morphology until approximately 10% contamination. Furthermore, we demonstrated that other inborn errors of metabolism might be more susceptible to diagnostic error by low level MCC. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of the microsatellite analysis (> or =10%) is well within the threshold of peroxisomal biochemical assays. Although peroxisomal biochemical assays would not be predicted to introduce a false positive or negative result if MCC <10% were present but not recognised by molecular analysis, the same may not be true for other inborn errors of metabolism.
Authors: T Antoniadi; C Yapijakis; P Kaminopetros; C Makatsoris; V Velissariou; D Vassilopoulos; M B Petersen Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: J Mossman; A D Patrick; A H Fensom; L R Tansley; P F Benson; V M Der Kaloustian; G Dudin Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 1981-04 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Deyanira Corzo; William Gibson; Kisha Johnson; Grant Mitchell; Guy LePage; Gerald F Cox; Robin Casey; Carolyn Zeiss; Heidi Tyson; Garry R Cutting; Gerald V Raymond; Kirby D Smith; Paul A Watkins; Ann B Moser; Hugo W Moser; Steven J Steinberg Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-04-29 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Avraham Zeharia; Merel S Ebberink; Ronald J A Wanders; Hans R Waterham; Alisa Gutman; Andreea Nissenkorn; Stanley H Korman Journal: J Hum Genet Date: 2007-05-30 Impact factor: 3.172
Authors: Diane Van Opstal; Marjan Boter; Danielle de Jong; Cardi van den Berg; Hennie T Brüggenwirth; Hajo I J Wildschut; Annelies de Klein; Robert-Jan H Galjaard Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 4.246