Literature DB >> 29096879

Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping for RhD negative women stratified into RHD gene deletion or variant groups: comparative accuracy using two blood collection tube types.

Catherine A Hyland1, Glenda M Millard2, Helen O'Brien2, Elizna M Schoeman2, Genghis H Lopez2, Eunike C McGowan2, Anne Tremellen3, Rachel Puddephatt4, Kirsten Gaerty5, Robert L Flower2, Jonathan A Hyett6, Glenn J Gardener7.   

Abstract

Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping in Australia to reduce anti-D usage will need to accommodate both prolonged sample transport times and a diverse population demographic harbouring a range of RHD blood group gene variants. We compared RHD genotyping accuracy using two blood sample collection tube types for RhD negative women stratified into deleted RHD gene haplotype and RHD gene variant cohorts. Maternal blood samples were collected into EDTA and cell-free (cf)DNA stabilising (BCT) tubes from two sites, one interstate. Automated DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were used to amplify RHD exons 5 and 10 and CCR5. Automated analysis flagged maternal RHD variants, which were classified by genotyping. Time between sample collection and processing ranged from 2.9 to 187.5 hours. cfDNA levels increased with time for EDTA (range 0.03-138 ng/μL) but not BCT samples (0.01-3.24 ng/μL). For the 'deleted' cohort (n=647) all fetal RHD genotyping outcomes were concordant, excepting for one unexplained false negative EDTA sample. Matched against cord RhD serology, negative predictive values using BCT and EDTA tubes were 100% and 99.6%, respectively. Positive predictive values were 99.7% for both types. Overall 37.2% of subjects carried an RhD negative baby. The 'variant' cohort (n=15) included one novel RHD and eight hybrid or African pseudogene variants. Review for fetal RHD specific signals, based on one exon, showed three EDTA samples discordant to BCT, attributed to high maternal cfDNA levels arising from prolonged transport times. For the deleted haplotype cohort, fetal RHD genotyping accuracy was comparable for samples collected in EDTA and BCT tubes despite higher cfDNA levels in the EDTA tubes. Capacity to predict fetal RHD genotype for maternal carriers of hybrid or pseudogene RHD variants requires stringent control of cfDNA levels. We conclude that fetal RHD genotyping is feasible in the Australian environment to avoid unnecessary anti-D immunoglobulin prophylaxis.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BCT; EDTA; Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping; RHD deleted haplotype; RHD variant; tRAAD

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29096879     DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2017.08.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathology        ISSN: 0031-3025            Impact factor:   5.306


  5 in total

1.  Next-generation sequencing of 35 RHD variants in 16 253 serologically D- pregnant women in the Finnish population.

Authors:  Silja M Tammi; Wajnat A Tounsi; Susanna Sainio; Michele Kiernan; Neil D Avent; Tracey E Madgett; Katri Haimila
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-10-27

2.  Complete RHD next-generation sequencing: establishment of reference RHD alleles.

Authors:  Wajnat A Tounsi; Tracey E Madgett; Neil D Avent
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-10-23

3.  Algorithm development and diagnostic accuracy testing for non-invasive foetal RHD genotyping: an Indian experience.

Authors:  Disha Parchure; Manisha Madkaikar; Swati Kulkarni
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.752

4.  Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review.

Authors:  Britta Runkel; Gregor Bein; Wiebke Sieben; Dorothea Sow; Stephanie Polus; Daniel Fleer
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Non-invasive prenatal paternity testing by analysis of Y-chromosome mini-STR haplotype using next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Wenqian Song; Nan Xiao; Shihang Zhou; Weijian Yu; Ni Wang; Linnan Shao; Ying Duan; Mei Chen; Lingzi Pan; Yuexin Xia; Li Zhang; Ming Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.