| Literature DB >> 29088863 |
Yan Yu1, Bingjian Lu2, Weiguo Lu3, Shuang Li4, Xiuqin Li5, Xinyu Wang3, Xiaoyun Wan3, Yaxia Chen3, Suwen Feng3, Yao Jia4, Ru Yang4, Fangxu Tang4, Xiong Li4, Shulan Zhang5, Xinyan Wang5, Heng Wei5, Zhilan Peng6, Lin Lu6, Huizhen Zhong7, Linjun Zhao7, Zhangqian Huang8, Lin Lin9, Weihong Shen9, Yan Lu3,10, Zhu Cao1, Jian Zou1, Yuejiang Ma1, Xiaojing Chen1, Qifang Tian3, Shiming Lu11, Pengyuan Liu10,12, Ding Ma4, Xing Xie3, Xiaodong Cheng3.
Abstract
Complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) is a rare pregnancy-related disease with invasive potential. The genetics underlying the sporadic form of CHM have not been addressed previously, but maternal genetic variants may be involved in biparental CHM. We performed whole-exome sequencing of 51 patients with CHM and 47 healthy women to identify genetic variants associated with CHM. In addition, candidate variants were analyzed using single base extension and Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry in 199 CHM patients and 400 healthy controls. We validated candidate variants using Sanger sequencing in 250 cases and 652 controls, including 205 new controls. Two single nucleotide polymorphisms, c.G48C(p.Q16H) inERC1 and c.G1114A(p.G372S) in KCNG4, were associated with an increased risk of CHM (p<0.05). These variants may contribute to the pathogenesis of CHM and could be used to screen pregnant women for this genetic abnormality.Entities:
Keywords: complete hydatidiform mole; genomics; pathogenesis; whole-exome sequencing
Year: 2017 PMID: 29088863 PMCID: PMC5650418 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.20769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Summary of the study design and results
We performed whole-exome sequencing on samples from 51 CHM patients and 47 healthy women. Screening of candidate mutations by MALDI-TOF MS was performed in 199 CHM patients and 400 healthy women. Candidate polymorphisms were validated by Sanger sequencing in 250 cases and 652 controls, which included samples analyzed in the first and second screening and an additional 205 controls. We identified two SNPs:ERC1c.G48C(p.Q16H), and KCNG4 c.G1114A(p.G372S) that were associated with an increased risk of CHM (p<0.05).
Figure 2Analysis of whole-exome sequencing data
We identified 398,594 SNVs. There were 289,178 rare SNVs in 2,034 genes (MAF<0.02, in the 1000 genomes project (http://1000genomes.org)) and 43,219 non-silent mutations in CDS regions. Functional analysis indicated there were 5,301 rare variants predicted to be deleterious. MAF for each SNV was calculated according to the guidline from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/docs/rs_attributes.html.
Figure 3Distribution and functional analysisof rare SNVs
(A) Of the 289,178 rare SNVs identified, there were 2,035 SNVs in upstream regions; 3,367 SNVs in 5’UTRs; 560 SNVs in splice sites; 66,536 SNVs in exons; 123,938 SNVs in introns; 6,776 SNVs in 3’UTR; 1,085 SNVs in downstream regions; 71,210 SNVs in intergenic regions; 117 SNVs in upstream/downstream regions; 6 SNVs in 5’UTR/3’UTRs; 3,923 SNVs in ncRNA exons; 9,591 SNVs in ncRNA introns; 34 SNVs in ncRNA splice sites. (B) Functional analysis of the 43,219 SNVs inCDS regions revealed 7 SNVs that resulted in non-frameshift substitutions; 127 SNVs that resulted in non-frameshift insertions; 356 SNVs that resulted in non-frameshift deletions; 142 SNVs that resulted in frameshift insertions; 306 SNVs that resulted in frameshift deletions; 26 stop-loss SNVs; 764 stop-gain SNVs; 40,064 non-synonymous SNVs; 23,877 synonymous SNVs; and 867 SNVs of unknown consequence.
Analysis of the association between ERC1(c.G48C) and CHM
| ERC1(c.G48C) | CHM patients | Controls | p | OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n* | RAF/ALL | n* | RAF/ALL | |||
| WES | 51(51) | 5/102 | 47(47) | 2/94 | 0.26 | |
| MassARRAY | 198(199) | 15/396 | 399(400) | 12/798 | 0.013 | 2.58 (1.26 - +∞) |
| Sanger test | 248(250) | 20/496 | 651 (652) | 20/1302 | 0.002 | 2.69(1.51 - +∞) |
RAF=risk allele frequency; n=number.
* The number given in bracket represents for the total of samples for testing while that outside of the bracket indicates the total of the samples with interpretable results. Several cases failed in these detection systems.
Analysis of the association between KCNG4(c.G48C) and CHM
| KCNG4(c.G48C) | CHM patients | Controls | p | OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n* | RAF/ALL | n* | RAF/ALL | |||
| WES | 51(51) | 3/102 | 47(47) | 0/94 | 0.14 | |
| MassARRAY | 197(199) | 11/394 | 395(400) | 7/790 | 0.014 | 3.21(1.31 - +∞) |
| Sanger test | 247(250) | 14/494 | 650 (652) | 14/1300 | 0.009 | 2.68(1.33 - +∞) |
RAF=risk allele frequency; n=number.
* The number given in bracket represents for the total of samples for testing while that outside of the bracket indicates the total of the samples with interpretable results. Several cases failed in these detection systems.