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
Interpretation
Technical standards2
Practice guidelines3
ACOG committee opinion4
Wittenberger et al. 5
Unaffected
<45
<41
<41
<45
Intermediate, gray zone
45–54
41–60
41–60
45–54
Premutation
55–200
61–200
61–200
55–200
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.8Lastly, 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.10Thus, 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. repeats
Interpretation according to
technical standards and guidelines
Interpretation according to
practice guidelines
41–44
Unaffected
Intermediate, grayzone
45–54
Intermediate, grayzone
Intermediate, grayzone
55–60
Premutation
Intermediate, grayzone
61–200
Premutation
Premutation
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: <45Intermediate: 45–54Premutation: 55–200Full mutation: >200
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
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
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
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
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
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