Literature DB >> 18941415

Clinical significance of tri-nucleotide repeats in Fragile X testing: a clarification of American College of Medical Genetics guidelines.

Kathryn E Kronquist, Stephanie L Sherman, Elaine B Spector.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18941415      PMCID: PMC3111547          DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818b0c8a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: The purpose of this letter is to reconcile a discrepancy between two documents issued by the American College of Medical Genetics: the Technical Standards and Guidelines for Fragile X testing published in 20011 and updated in 20052 and the Genetics Practice Guidelines statement on diagnostic and carrier testing for Fragile X syndrome published in 2005.3 In the Practice Guidelines, a broad range of 41–60 trinucleotide repeats was described for the intermediate or “gray zone” in Fragile X syndrome based on a research context. That is, research groups used this broader range to identify high-risk alleles. More relevant to the clinical setting, a range of 45–54 trinucleotide repeats was quoted for the gray zone in the Technical Standards and Guidelines publication. For a summary of these ranges please see Table 1.
Table 1

Comparison of the CGG repeat length ranges for each allelic class as defined by the four reports

InterpretationTechnical standards2Practice guidelines3ACOG committee opinion4Wittenberger et al. 5
Unaffected<45<41<41<45
Intermediate, gray zone45–5441–6041–6045–54
Premutation55–20061–20061–20055–200
Full mutation>200>200>200>200
Differences in the intermediate range then led to discrepancies in the reported ranges for Fragile X premutations. In the Practice Guidelines, the premutation range is characterized as 61–200 repeats, whereas in the Technical Standards and Guidelines, the premutation range is defined as 55–200 repeats. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists based their committee opinion on the ACMG Practice Guidelines, leading to confusion among physicians in interpretation of Fragile X test reports. The ranges for intermediate and premutation Fragile X alleles quoted in the 2005 Practice Guidelines have never been used in laboratory practice. After an extensive review of the literature in 2005, the Quality Assurance Committee of the ACMG determined that no changes were required to the ranges originally published in 2001. In a recent article summarizing two multidisciplinary workshops focused on reproductive counseling for FMR1 premutation carriers, Wittenberger et al.5 defined the four allelic forms of FMR1 with respect to CGG repeat size. They stated that consensus has been reached, both in the literature and in the workshops regarding the size of the premutation at 55–200 repeats, and the full mutation at >200 repeats and these ranges agree with those in the Technical Standards and Guidelines as summarized in Table 1. Wittenberger et al. also stated that consensus has not yet been reached for the lower limit of the intermediate or gray zone (i.e., 45–54 repeats or 40–54 repeats). The clinical significance of intermediate and low premutation size alleles is 3-fold. First, it is the extent to which they may be prone to instability, particularly expansion, in future generations. At the present time, the smallest repeat known to expand to a full mutation in one generation is 59 CGGs.6,7 Recognizing this and the fact that there is variation between laboratories and between laboratory methods when determining the exact CGG repeat number, the Laboratory Technical Standards and Guidelines place the boundaries of the premutation range at 55 and 200 CGG repeats. Quality Assurance challenges through the College of American Pathologists have shown that repeat lengths sized using polymerase chain reaction–based techniques can vary by ±3–4 repeats. The Technical Standards and Guidelines allowed for this variation in choosing 55 repeats as the lower limit of the premutation range to avoid missing any women at risk for having a child with the Fragile X syndrome. Second, the clinical significance is the extent to which these repeat size alleles increase the risk for premutation-associated Fragile X tremor ataxia syndrome (FXTAS). FXTAS is a late-onset neurodegenerative disorder with predominant features of cerebellar ataxia and intention tremor. Onset is usually in persons older than 50 years. The risk and/or severity of the disorder is associated with repeat size, the highest risk being associated with larger repeats. Among individuals with late-onset cerebellar ataxia, the prevalence of premutation alleles was 13 times greater than expected based on its prevalence in the general population as assessed by a recent meta-analysis.8 Lastly, the clinical significance of intermediate/low premutation repeat size alleles is the extent to which they impose a risk for premutation-associated ovarian insufficiency. The prevalence of premature ovarian failure (POF) or cessation of menses before 40 years of age is about 20%, although it is highly associated with repeat size: the risk seems to increase with increasing premutation repeat size between 59 and 99, thereafter the risk of POF plateaus or even decreases for women with repeat sizes over 100.9 Premutation carriers have been identified in about 3% of women with sporadic POF and in about 12% of women with familial POF.10 Thus, at this point, the risk and/or severity of all three disorders associated with premutation alleles (i.e., instability during transmission, FXTAS and POF) is established for alleles 55–200 repeats. The risk among the alleles in the lower part of this range, 55–70 is significantly lower than that in the upper range, 70–200, for all three disorders. Table 2 shows the distribution of repeats among the allelic forms of FMR1 between 41 repeats and 200 repeats as defined in the two conflicting ACMG publications. The table demonstrates that, were genetic counseling to be based on the Practice Guidelines, individuals with 59 and 60 repeats, who are at risk to have an affected child in the next generation, would not be counseled appropriately. Furthermore, a greater number of patients would be identified to have intermediate or gray zone alleles. As stated above, carrying the label of intermediate or gray zone currently has no established clinical significance and may cause unwarranted concern to families.
Table 2

Comparison of the clinical interpretation of each allelic class by the two sets of guidelines

No. repeatsInterpretation according to technical standards and guidelinesInterpretation according to practice guidelines
41–44UnaffectedIntermediate, grayzone
45–54Intermediate, grayzoneIntermediate, grayzone
55–60PremutationIntermediate, grayzone
61–200PremutationPremutation
In conclusion, the Quality Assurance Committee and the Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee of the ACMG have determined that no changes are required to the ranges published originally in 20011 and restated in 2005 in the Technical Standards and Guidelines for Fragile X testing.2 The ACMG Quality Assurance Committee and the Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee recommend that the following ranges for CGG repeat size be used in the laboratory as well as in clinical practice: Unaffected: <45 Intermediate: 45–54 Premutation: 55–200 Full mutation: >200
  8 in total

1.  Size bias of fragile X premutation alleles in late-onset movement disorders.

Authors:  Sebastien Jacquemont; Maureen A Leehey; Randi J Hagerman; Laurel A Beckett; Paul J Hagerman
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  ACOG committee opinion. No. 338: Screening for fragile X syndrome.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Nonlinear association between CGG repeat number and age of menopause in FMR1 premutation carriers.

Authors:  Sarah Ennis; Daniel Ward; Anna Murray
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  The FMR1 premutation and reproduction.

Authors:  Michael D Wittenberger; Randi J Hagerman; Stephanie L Sherman; Allyn McConkie-Rosell; Corrine K Welt; Robert W Rebar; Emily C Corrigan; Joe Leigh Simpson; Lawrence M Nelson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-10-30       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 5.  The fragile-X premutation: a maturing perspective.

Authors:  Paul J Hagerman; Randi J Hagerman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2004-03-29       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Expansion of the fragile X CGG repeat in females with premutation or intermediate alleles.

Authors:  Sarah L Nolin; W Ted Brown; Anne Glicksman; George E Houck; Alice D Gargano; Amy Sullivan; Valérie Biancalana; Karen Bröndum-Nielsen; Helle Hjalgrim; Elke Holinski-Feder; Frank Kooy; John Longshore; James Macpherson; Jean-Louis Mandel; Gert Matthijs; Francois Rousseau; Peter Steinbach; Marja-Leena Väisänen; Harriet von Koskull; Stephanie L Sherman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-01-14       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing.

Authors:  Stephanie Sherman; Beth A Pletcher; Deborah A Driscoll
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Technical standards and guidelines for fragile X: the first of a series of disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics. Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the Laboratory Practice Committee.

Authors:  A Maddalena; C S Richards; M J McGinniss; A Brothman; R J Desnick; R E Grier; B Hirsch; P Jacky; G A McDowell; B Popovich; M Watson; D J Wolff
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

  8 in total
  27 in total

1.  Fragile X-associated tremor ataxia syndrome in FMR1 gray zone allele carriers.

Authors:  Deborah Hall; Flora Tassone; Olga Klepitskaya; Maureen Leehey
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2011-12-11       Impact factor: 10.338

Review 2.  Can we make assumptions about the psychosocial impact of living as a carrier, based on studies assessing the effects of carrier testing?

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Heather Skirton; Ray Jones
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  FMR1 CGG Repeats: Reference Levels and Race-Ethnic Variation in Women With Normal Fertility (Study of Women's Health Across the Nation).

Authors:  Lisa M Pastore; Ani Manichaikul; Xin Q Wang; Joel S Finkelstein
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 3.060

4.  A novel assay for evaluating fragile X locus repeats.

Authors:  Karl Adler; J Kent Moore; Galina Filippov; Shaoping Wu; Jon Carmichael; Mack Schermer
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2011-07-26       Impact factor: 5.568

5.  Intra-individual stability over time of standardized anti-Mullerian hormone in FMR1 premutation carriers.

Authors:  M A Spath; T B Feuth; E G Allen; A P T Smits; H G Yntema; A Geurts van Kessel; D D M Braat; S L Sherman; C M G Thomas
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Correlation of normal-range FMR1 repeat length or genotypes and reproductive parameters.

Authors:  Bat-Sheva L Maslow; Stephanie Davis; Lawrence Engmann; John C Nulsen; Claudio A Benadiva
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  Fragile X syndrome: the FMR1 CGG repeat distribution among world populations.

Authors:  Emmanuel Peprah
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 1.670

8.  The fragile x mental retardation syndrome 20 years after the FMR1 gene discovery: an expanding universe of knowledge.

Authors:  François Rousseau; Yves Labelle; Johanne Bussières; Carmen Lindsay
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2011-08

9.  A novel FMR1 PCR method for the routine detection of low abundance expanded alleles and full mutations in fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Stela Filipovic-Sadic; Sachin Sah; Liangjing Chen; Julie Krosting; Edward Sekinger; Wenting Zhang; Paul J Hagerman; Timothy T Stenzel; Andrew G Hadd; Gary J Latham; Flora Tassone
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 8.327

10.  Development of a fragile X syndrome (FXS) knowledge scale: towards a modified multidimensional measure of informed choice for FXS population carrier screening.

Authors:  Alice G Ames; Alice Jaques; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Alison D Archibald; Rony E Duncan; Jon Emery; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.