| Literature DB >> 29463882 |
Ngoc Minh Phuong Nguyen1, Yassemine Khawajkie2, Nawel Mechtouf1, Maryam Rezaei1, Magali Breguet3, Elvira Kurvinen4, Sujatha Jagadeesh5, Asli Ece Solmaz6, Monica Aguinaga7, Reda Hemida8, Mehmet Ibrahim Harma9, Cécile Rittore10, Kurosh Rahimi11, Jocelyne Arseneau12, Karine Hovanes13, Ronald Clisham14, Tiffanee Lenzi15, Bonnie Scurry16, Marie-Claude Addor17, Rashmi Bagga18, Genevieve Girardet Nendaz19, Vildana Finci20, Gemma Poke21, Leslie Grimes22, Nerine Gregersen23, Kayla York24, Pierre-Adrien Bolze25, Chirag Patel26, Hossein Mozdarani27, Jacques Puechberty28, Jessica Scotchie29, Majid Fardaei30, Muge Harma9, R J McKinlay Gardner21,31, Trilochan Sahoo13, Tracy Dudding-Byth32, Radhika Srinivasan33, Philippe Sauthier3, Rima Slim34,35,36.
Abstract
Hydatidiform mole is an aberrant human pregnancy characterized by early embryonic arrest and excessive trophoblastic proliferation. Recurrent hydatidiform moles are defined by the occurrence of at least two hydatidiform moles in the same patient. Fifty to eighty percent of patients with recurrent hydatidiform moles have biallelic pathogenic variants in NLRP7 or KHDC3L. However, in the remaining patients, the genotypic types of the moles are unknown. We characterized 80 new hydatidiform mole tissues, 57 of which were from patients with no mutations in the known genes, and we reviewed the genotypes of a total of 123 molar tissues. We also reviewed mutation analysis in 113 patients with recurrent hydatidiform moles. While all hydatidiform moles from patients with biallelic NLRP7 or KHDC3L mutations are diploid biparental, we demonstrate that those from patients without mutations are highly heterogeneous and only a small minority of them are diploid biparental (8%). The other mechanisms that were found to recur in patients without mutations are diploid androgenetic monospermic (24%) and triploid dispermic (32%); the remaining hydatidiform moles were misdiagnosed as moles due to errors in the analyses and/or their unusual mechanisms. We compared three parameters of genetic susceptibility in patients with and without mutations and show that patients without mutations are mostly from non-familial cases, have fewer reproductive losses, and more live births. Our data demonstrate that patients with recurrent hydatidiform moles and no mutations in the known genes are, in general, different from those with mutations; they have a milder genetic susceptibility and/or a multifactorial etiology underlying their recurrent hydatidiform moles. Categorizing these patients according to the genotypic types of their recurrent hydatidiform moles may facilitate the identification of novel genes for this entity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29463882 DOI: 10.1038/s41379-018-0031-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mod Pathol ISSN: 0893-3952 Impact factor: 7.842