BACKGROUND: Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is a trinucleotide-repeat disease caused by the expansion of CGG sequences in the 5' untranslated region of the FMR1 (fragile X mental retardation 1) gene. Molecular diagnoses of FXS and other emerging FMR1 disorders typically rely on 2 tests, PCR and Southern blotting; however, performance or throughput limitations of these methods currently constrain routine testing. METHODS: We evaluated a novel FMR1 gene-specific PCR technology with DNA templates from 20 cell lines and 146 blinded clinical samples. The CGG repeat number was determined by fragment sizing of PCR amplicons with capillary electrophoresis, and results were compared with those for FMR1 Southern blotting analyses with the same samples. RESULTS: The FMR1 PCR accurately detected full-mutation alleles up to at least 1300 CGG repeats and consisting of >99% GC character. All categories of alleles detected by Southern blotting, including 66 samples with full mutations, were also identified by the FMR1 PCR for each of the 146 clinical samples. Because all full mutation alleles in samples from heterozygous females were detected by the PCR, allele zygosity was reconciled in every case. The PCR reagents also detected a 1% mass fraction of a 940-CGG allele in a background of 99% 23-CGG allele-a roughly 5- fold greater sensitivity than obtained with Southern blotting. CONCLUSIONS: The novel PCR technology can accurately categorize the spectrum of FMR1 alleles, including alleles previously considered too large to amplify; reproducibly detect low abundance full mutation alleles; and correctly infer homozygosity in female samples, thus greatly reducing the need for sample reflexing to Southern blotting.
BACKGROUND:Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is a trinucleotide-repeat disease caused by the expansion of CGG sequences in the 5' untranslated region of the FMR1 (fragile X mental retardation 1) gene. Molecular diagnoses of FXS and other emerging FMR1 disorders typically rely on 2 tests, PCR and Southern blotting; however, performance or throughput limitations of these methods currently constrain routine testing. METHODS: We evaluated a novel FMR1 gene-specific PCR technology with DNA templates from 20 cell lines and 146 blinded clinical samples. The CGG repeat number was determined by fragment sizing of PCR amplicons with capillary electrophoresis, and results were compared with those for FMR1 Southern blotting analyses with the same samples. RESULTS: The FMR1 PCR accurately detected full-mutation alleles up to at least 1300 CGG repeats and consisting of >99% GC character. All categories of alleles detected by Southern blotting, including 66 samples with full mutations, were also identified by the FMR1 PCR for each of the 146 clinical samples. Because all full mutation alleles in samples from heterozygous females were detected by the PCR, allele zygosity was reconciled in every case. The PCR reagents also detected a 1% mass fraction of a 940-CGG allele in a background of 99% 23-CGG allele-a roughly 5- fold greater sensitivity than obtained with Southern blotting. CONCLUSIONS: The novel PCR technology can accurately categorize the spectrum of FMR1 alleles, including alleles previously considered too large to amplify; reproducibly detect low abundance full mutation alleles; and correctly infer homozygosity in female samples, thus greatly reducing the need for sample reflexing to Southern blotting.
Authors: R J Hagerman; M Leehey; W Heinrichs; F Tassone; R Wilson; J Hills; J Grigsby; B Gage; P J Hagerman Journal: Neurology Date: 2001-07-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: I Oberlé; F Rousseau; D Heitz; C Kretz; D Devys; A Hanauer; J Boué; M F Bertheas; J L Mandel Journal: Science Date: 1991-05-24 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: A J Verkerk; M Pieretti; J S Sutcliffe; Y H Fu; D P Kuhl; A Pizzuti; O Reiner; S Richards; M F Victoria; F P Zhang Journal: Cell Date: 1991-05-31 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: A K Taylor; J F Safanda; M Z Fall; C Quince; K A Lang; C E Hull; I Carpenter; L W Staley; R J Hagerman Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-02-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Y H Fu; D P Kuhl; A Pizzuti; M Pieretti; J S Sutcliffe; S Richards; A J Verkerk; J J Holden; R G Fenwick; S T Warren Journal: Cell Date: 1991-12-20 Impact factor: 41.582
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: L Santa María; A Pugin; M A Alliende; S Aliaga; B Curotto; T Aravena; H-T Tang; G Mendoza-Morales; R Hagerman; F Tassone Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Zukhrofi Muzar; Reymundo Lozano; Andrea Schneider; Patrick E Adams; Sultana M H Faradz; Flora Tassone; Randi J Hagerman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Paras Garg; Bharati Jadhav; Oscar L Rodriguez; Nihir Patel; Alejandro Martin-Trujillo; Miten Jain; Sofie Metsu; Hugh Olsen; Benedict Paten; Beate Ritz; R Frank Kooy; Jozef Gecz; Andrew J Sharp Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jun Yi Wang; David Hessl; Christine Iwahashi; Katherine Cheung; Andrea Schneider; Randi J Hagerman; Paul J Hagerman; Susan M Rivera Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 6.556