| Literature DB >> 35456449 |
Nikhil Shri Sahajpal1, Ashis K Mondal1, Sudha Ananth1, Chetan Pundkar2, Kimya Jones1, Colin Williams1, Timothy Fee3, Amanda Weissman4, Giuseppe Tripodi4, Eesha Oza1, Larisa Gavrilova-Jordan5, Nivin Omar1, Alex R Hastie6, Barbara R DuPont3, Lawrence Layman5, Alka Chaubey6, Ravindra Kolhe1.
Abstract
Conventional cytogenetic analysis of products of conception (POC) is of limited utility because of failed cultures, as well as microbial and maternal cell contamination (MCC). Optical genome mapping (OGM) is an emerging technology that has the potential to replace conventional cytogenetic methods. The use of OGM precludes the requirement for culturing (and related microbial contamination). However, a high percentage of MCC impedes a definitive diagnosis, which can be addressed by an additional pre-analytical quality control step that includes histological assessment of H&E stained slides from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue with macro-dissection for chorionic villi to enrich fetal tissue component for single nucleotide polymorphism microarray (SNPM) analysis. To improve the diagnostic yield, an integrated workflow was devised that included MCC characterization of POC tissue, followed by OGM for MCC-negative cases or SNPM with histological assessment for MCC-positive cases. A result was obtained in 93% (29/31) of cases with a diagnostic yield of 45.1% (14/31) with the proposed workflow, compared to 9.6% (3/31) and 6.4% (2/31) with routine workflow, respectively. The integrated workflow with these technologies demonstrates the clinical utility and higher diagnostic yield in evaluating POC specimens.Entities:
Keywords: microarray; optical genome mapping; products of conception
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35456449 PMCID: PMC9026980 DOI: 10.3390/genes13040643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.141
Figure 1Flowchart depicting a modified diagnostic laboratory workflow compared to routine testing for high diagnostic yield in evaluating POC.
Figure 2Representative H&E slides (a–d) identifying (fetal tissue) marked in blue circles, with a zoomed-in view at 600 µm magnification, those marked for macrodissection and DNA isolation by a surgical pathologist.
Figure 3Flowchart depicting the detailed workflow for MCC-positive POC tissue with histological assessment and OncoScan microarray analysis and reporting.
Clinical characteristics.
| Patient Characteristic | Classification | No. |
|---|---|---|
| Anamnestic data | ||
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 33.4 ± 5.1 | |
| No. of previous losses | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | 4 | |
| 4 | 0 | |
| 5 | 1 | |
| 6 | 1 | |
| 7 | 1 | |
| No. of previous live births | 0 | 16 |
| 1 | 8 | |
| 2 | 4 | |
| 3 | 3 | |
| Miscarriage | <20 weeks | 27 |
| Intra-uterine fetal demise | 3 | |
| Stillbirths | 1 | |
| Current Material | ||
| Sporadic miscarriage | 22 | |
| Recurrent pregnancy loss | 9 |
Figure 4Optical genome mapping identifying trisomy 15 (a) circos plot showing trisomy 15 (b) copy number track view with trisomy 15, (c) circos plot showing trisomy 20 (d) copy number track view with trisomy 20.
Abnormal genetic aberrations detected with SNP microarray and optical genome mapping on the product of conception.
| S.No. | Trimester | ISCN Nomenclature | Size |
|---|---|---|---|
| OncoScan Analysis | |||
| 1 | 9 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] (22) × 3 | Entire chromosome 22 |
| 2 | 10 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] 4q34.3(178,112,003-182,153,124)×3, (21,22) × 2~3 | 4.0 Mb Gain of chr 4 and Gain of entire chromosomes 21 and 22 |
| 3 | 8 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] (8) × 2~3 | Entire chromosome 8 |
| 4 | 9 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] (8) × 3 | 146.1Mb |
| 5 | 10 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] (14) × 2~3 | Entire chromosome 14 |
| 6 | 10 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] (X) × 1~2 | Entire chromosome X |
| 7 | 14 weeks, 2nd | arr[hg19]2q34q37.2(214027641-236628038) ×3, 2q37.2q37.3(236228142-243052331) × 1 | 22.6Mb gain and 6.4Mb loss |
| 8 | 11 weeks, 1st | arr [hg19] (1-21,X) × 2, (22)×2~3 | Entire chromosome 22 |
| 9 | 8 weeks 5 days, 1st | arr[hg19] (15) × 2~3 | Entire chromosome 15 |
| 10 | 6 weeks, 6 days, 1st | arr[hg19] (18) × 3 | Entire chromosome 18 |
| 11 | 26 weeks 1 day, 2nd | arr[hg19] 2p21(43411752-44710936) × 3, 21q21.1(18762223-19136546) ×1 | 1.29 Mb Gain and 374 Kb Loss |
| 12 | Less than 3 weeks, 1st | arr[hg19] 13q14.11(42311546_42413745) × 1 | 102 Kb Loss |
| Optical Genome Mapping | |||
| 13 | 6 weeks, 1st | ogm[GrCh38](15) × 3 | Entire chromosome 15 |
| 14 | 8 weeks, 1st | ogm[GrCh38](20) × 3 | Entire chromosome 20 |
Figure 5OncoScan analysis identifying double mosaic trisomies involving chromosomes 21 and 22 (ascertained as ~70% mosaic gain), and a copy number gain of Chr 4q, a variant of uncertain significance: Upper panel shows whole-genome view, lower panel shows log2ratio, smooth signal, and B-Allele Frequency (BAF) of chr 21, c) log2ratio, smooth signal, and BAF of chr 22.
Figure 6OncoScan analysis identified 22.6 Mb copy gain of Chr 2q34q37.2 and a 6.4 Mb copy loss of Chr 2q37.2q37.3, indicating a complex rearrangement involving the long arm of chromosome 2: Upper panel shows the whole-genome view.Lower panel shows the log2ratio, smooth signal, and BAF of chr 2.