Kate Swanson1,2, Mary E Norton1,2,3,4, Billie R Lianoglou3, Angie C Jelin5, Ugur Hodoglugil6, Jessica Van Ziffle6, Patrick Devine6, Teresa N Sparks1,3,4. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Medical Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Fetal Treatment Center, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Genomic Medicine Laboratory, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Exome sequencing (ES) offers the ability to assess for variants in thousands of genes and is particularly useful in the setting of fetal anomalies. However, the ES pipeline relies on a thorough understanding of an individual patient's phenotype, which may be limited in the prenatal setting. Additional pathology evaluations in the pre- and postnatal settings can add phenotypic details important for clearly establishing and characterizing a diagnosis. METHODS: This is a case series of prenatal ES performed at our institution in which pathology evaluations, including autopsy, dysmorphology examination, histology, and peripheral blood smear, augmented the understanding of the fetal phenotype. ES was performed at our institution and a multidisciplinary panel reviewed and classified the variants for each case. RESULTS: We present four cases wherein pathology evaluations were beneficial for supporting a perinatal diagnosis identified with ES. In each of these cases, pathology findings provided additional data to support a more complete understanding of the relationship between the perinatal phenotype and variants identified with ES. CONCLUSION: These cases highlight challenges of perinatal ES related to incomplete prenatal phenotyping, demonstrate the utility of pathology evaluations to support diagnoses identified with ES, and further characterize the disease manifestations of specific genetic variants.
OBJECTIVE: Exome sequencing (ES) offers the ability to assess for variants in thousands of genes and is particularly useful in the setting of fetal anomalies. However, the ES pipeline relies on a thorough understanding of an individual patient's phenotype, which may be limited in the prenatal setting. Additional pathology evaluations in the pre- and postnatal settings can add phenotypic details important for clearly establishing and characterizing a diagnosis. METHODS: This is a case series of prenatal ES performed at our institution in which pathology evaluations, including autopsy, dysmorphology examination, histology, and peripheral blood smear, augmented the understanding of the fetal phenotype. ES was performed at our institution and a multidisciplinary panel reviewed and classified the variants for each case. RESULTS: We present four cases wherein pathology evaluations were beneficial for supporting a perinatal diagnosis identified with ES. In each of these cases, pathology findings provided additional data to support a more complete understanding of the relationship between the perinatal phenotype and variants identified with ES. CONCLUSION: These cases highlight challenges of perinatal ES related to incomplete prenatal phenotyping, demonstrate the utility of pathology evaluations to support diagnoses identified with ES, and further characterize the disease manifestations of specific genetic variants.
Authors: Paul D Griffiths; Michael Bradburn; Michael J Campbell; Cindy L Cooper; Ruth Graham; Deborah Jarvis; Mark D Kilby; Gerald Mason; Cara Mooney; Stephen C Robson; Allan Wailoo Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yaping Yang; Donna M Muzny; Jeffrey G Reid; Matthew N Bainbridge; Alecia Willis; Patricia A Ward; Alicia Braxton; Joke Beuten; Fan Xia; Zhiyv Niu; Matthew Hardison; Richard Person; Mir Reza Bekheirnia; Magalie S Leduc; Amelia Kirby; Peter Pham; Jennifer Scull; Min Wang; Yan Ding; Sharon E Plon; James R Lupski; Arthur L Beaudet; Richard A Gibbs; Christine M Eng Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sebastian Köhler; Marcel H Schulz; Peter Krawitz; Sebastian Bauer; Sandra Dölken; Claus E Ott; Christine Mundlos; Denise Horn; Stefan Mundlos; Peter N Robinson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Sunayna Best; Karen Wou; Neeta Vora; Ignatia B Van der Veyver; Ronald Wapner; Lyn S Chitty Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Peter N Robinson; Vida Ravanmehr; Julius O B Jacobsen; Daniel Danis; Xingmin Aaron Zhang; Leigh C Carmody; Michael A Gargano; Courtney L Thaxton; Guy Karlebach; Justin Reese; Manuel Holtgrewe; Sebastian Köhler; Julie A McMurry; Melissa A Haendel; Damian Smedley Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Aaron J Masino; Elizabeth T Dechene; Matthew C Dulik; Alisha Wilkens; Nancy B Spinner; Ian D Krantz; Jeffrey W Pennington; Peter N Robinson; Peter S White Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Kimberly Amburgey; Meryl Acker; Samia Saeed; Reshma Amin; Alan H Beggs; Carsten G Bönnemann; Michael Brudno; Andrei Constantinescu; Jahannaz Dastgir; Mamadou Diallo; Casie A Genetti; Michael Glueck; Stacy Hewson; Courtney Hum; Minal S Jain; Michael W Lawlor; Oscar H Meyer; Leslie Nelson; Nicole Sultanum; Faiza Syed; Tuyen Tran; Ching H Wang; James J Dowling Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Neeta L Vora; Kelly Gilmore; Alicia Brandt; Chelsea Gustafson; Natasha Strande; Lori Ramkissoon; Emily Hardisty; Ann Katherine M Foreman; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Phillips Owen; Karen E Weck; Jonathan S Berg; Cynthia M Powell; Bradford C Powell Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 8.822