F Fu1, R Li1, Y Li2, Z-Q Nie3, T Lei1, D Wang1, X Yang1, J Han1, M Pan1, L Zhen1, Y Ou1, J Li1, F-T Li1, X Jing1, D Li1, C Liao1. 1. Prenatal Diagnostic Center, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. Guanzghou Umbilical Cord Blood Bank, Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 3. Epidemiology Division, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) for monogenic disorders in fetuses with structural malformations and normal results on cytogenetic testing, and to describe information on pathogenic variants that is provided by WES. METHODS: Karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and WES were performed sequentially on stored samples from a cohort of 3949 pregnancies with fetal structural abnormalities detected on ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging, referred between January 2011 and December 2015. Diagnostic rates of the three techniques were investigated overall, for phenotypic subgroups and for proband-only vs fetus-mother-father samples. Information on pathogenic variants was identified by WES. RESULTS: Overall, 18.2% (720/3949) of fetuses had an abnormal karyotype. Pathogenic copy number variants were detected on CMA in 8.2% (138/1680) of fetuses that had a normal karyotype result. WES performed on a subgroup of 196 fetuses with normal CMA and karyotype results revealed the putative genetic variants responsible for the abnormal phenotypes in 47 cases (24%). The molecular diagnosis rates for fetus-mother-father and proband-only samples were 26.5% (13/49) and 23.1% (34/147), respectively. Variants of uncertain significance were detected in 12.8% (25/196) of fetuses, of which 22 were identified in the fetal proband-only group (15%; 22/147) and three in the fetus-mother-father group (6.1%; 3/49). The incidental finding rate was 6.1% (12/196). CONCLUSIONS: WES is a promising method for the identification of genetic variants that cause structural abnormalities in fetuses with normal results on karyotyping and CMA. This enhanced diagnostic yield has the potential to improve the clinical management of pregnancies and to inform better the reproductive decisions of affected families.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) for monogenic disorders in fetuses with structural malformations and normal results on cytogenetic testing, and to describe information on pathogenic variants that is provided by WES. METHODS: Karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and WES were performed sequentially on stored samples from a cohort of 3949 pregnancies with fetal structural abnormalities detected on ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging, referred between January 2011 and December 2015. Diagnostic rates of the three techniques were investigated overall, for phenotypic subgroups and for proband-only vs fetus-mother-father samples. Information on pathogenic variants was identified by WES. RESULTS: Overall, 18.2% (720/3949) of fetuses had an abnormal karyotype. Pathogenic copy number variants were detected on CMA in 8.2% (138/1680) of fetuses that had a normal karyotype result. WES performed on a subgroup of 196 fetuses with normal CMA and karyotype results revealed the putative genetic variants responsible for the abnormal phenotypes in 47 cases (24%). The molecular diagnosis rates for fetus-mother-father and proband-only samples were 26.5% (13/49) and 23.1% (34/147), respectively. Variants of uncertain significance were detected in 12.8% (25/196) of fetuses, of which 22 were identified in the fetal proband-only group (15%; 22/147) and three in the fetus-mother-father group (6.1%; 3/49). The incidental finding rate was 6.1% (12/196). CONCLUSIONS: WES is a promising method for the identification of genetic variants that cause structural abnormalities in fetuses with normal results on karyotyping and CMA. This enhanced diagnostic yield has the potential to improve the clinical management of pregnancies and to inform better the reproductive decisions of affected families.
Authors: Clair A Kronk; Avery R Everhart; Florence Ashley; Hale M Thompson; Theodore E Schall; Teddy G Goetz; Laurel Hiatt; Zackary Derrick; Roz Queen; A Ram; E Mae Guthman; Olivia M Danforth; Elle Lett; Emery Potter; Simón E D Sun; Zack Marshall; Ryan Karnoski Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Meredith M Howley; Eva Williford; A J Agopian; Angela E Lin; Lorenzo D Botto; Christopher M Cunniff; Paul A Romitti; Eirini Nestoridi; Marilyn L Browne Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.661
Authors: Elizabeth A Normand; Alicia Braxton; Salma Nassef; Patricia A Ward; Francesco Vetrini; Weimin He; Vipulkumar Patel; Chunjing Qu; Lauren E Westerfield; Samantha Stover; Avinash V Dharmadhikari; Donna M Muzny; Richard A Gibbs; Hongzheng Dai; Linyan Meng; Xia Wang; Rui Xiao; Pengfei Liu; Weimin Bi; Fan Xia; Magdalena Walkiewicz; Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Christine M Eng; Yaping Yang Journal: Genome Med Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Gordon K C Leung; Christopher C Y Mak; Jasmine L F Fung; Wilfred H S Wong; Mandy H Y Tsang; Mullin H C Yu; Steven L C Pei; K S Yeung; Gary T K Mok; C P Lee; Amelia P W Hui; Mary H Y Tang; Kelvin Y K Chan; Anthony P Y Liu; Wanling Yang; P C Sham; Anita S Y Kan; Brian H Y Chung Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.063