Spectrum of Cytogenomic Abnormalities Revealed by Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization on Products of Conception Culture Failure and Normal Karyotype Samples.

Approximately 30% of pregnancies after implantation end up in spontaneous abortions, and 50% of them are caused by chromosomal abnormalities. However, the spectrum of genomic copy number variants (CNVs) in products of conception (POC) and the underlying gene-dosage-sensitive mechanisms causing spontaneous abortions remain largely unknown. In this study, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis was performed as a salvage procedure for 128 POC culture failure (POC-CF) samples and as a supplemental procedure for 106 POC normal karyotype (POC-NK) samples. Chromosomal abnormalities were detected in 10% of POC-CF and pathogenic CNVs were detected in 3.9% of POC-CF and 5.7% of POC-NK samples. Compiled results from this study and relevant case series through a literature review demonstrated an abnormality detection rate (ADR) of 35% for chromosomal abnormalities in POC-CF samples, 3.7% for pathogenic CNVs in POC-CF samples, and 4.6% for pathogenic CNVs in POC-NK samples. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) was performed on the genes from pathogenic CNVs found in POC samples. The denoted primary gene networks suggested that apoptosis and cell proliferation pathways are involved in miscarriage. In summary, a similar spectrum of cytogenomic abnormalities was observed in POC culture success and POC-CF samples. A threshold effect correlating the number of dosage-sensitive genes in a chromosome with the observed frequency of autosomal trisomy is proposed. A rationalized approach using firstly fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing with probes of chromosomes X/Y/18, 13/21, and 15/16/22 for common aneuploidies and polyploidies and secondly aCGH for other cytogenomic abnormalities is recommended for POC-CF samples.

[1]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  C. Sismani,et al.  Clinical application of whole-genome array CGH during prenatal diagnosis: Study of 25 selected pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings or apparently balanced structural aberrations , 2010, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[3]  Bixia Xiang,et al.  CytoAccess, a relational laboratory information management system for a clinical cytogenetics laboratory. , 2006, Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists.

[4]  M. Sauer Infertility and Early Pregnancy Loss Is Largely Due to Oocyte Aging, Not Uterine Senescence, as Demonstrated by Oocyte Donation , 1997, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Leslie G Biesecker,et al.  Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. , 2010, American journal of human genetics.

[6]  J. Vermeesch,et al.  Cytogenetic and morphological analysis of early products of conception following hystero‐embryoscopy from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss , 2012, Prenatal diagnosis.

[7]  S. South,et al.  Analytical and Clinical Validity Study of FirstStepDx PLUS: A Chromosomal Microarray Optimized for Patients with Neurodevelopmental Conditions , 2016, bioRxiv.

[8]  D. Warburton,et al.  The relationship between maternal age and chromosome size in autosomal trisomy. , 1986, American journal of human genetics.

[9]  M. Botcherby,et al.  Diagnostic utility of novel combined arrays for genome-wide simultaneous detection of aneuploidy and uniparental isodisomy in losses of pregnancy , 2014, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[10]  Marilyn M. Li,et al.  Genome-wide oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization for etiological diagnosis of mental retardation: a multicenter experience of 1499 clinical cases. , 2010, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[11]  M. Qumsiyeh,et al.  Array comparative genomic hybridization profiling of first‐trimester spontaneous abortions that fail to grow in vitro , 2005, Prenatal diagnosis.

[12]  M. Herbert,et al.  Meiosis and maternal aging: insights from aneuploid oocytes and trisomy births. , 2015, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[13]  E. Hook Exclusion of chromosomal mosaicism: tables of 90%, 95% and 99% confidence limits and comments on use. , 1977, American journal of human genetics.

[14]  J. Dungan Diagnosis of miscarriages by molecular karyotyping: Benefits and pitfalls , 2010 .

[15]  A. Lippman‐Hand,et al.  Maternal-age effect in aneuploidy: does altered embryonic selection play a role? , 1982, American journal of human genetics.

[16]  Fang Xu,et al.  Genomic characterization of prenatally detected chromosomal structural abnormalities using oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization , 2011, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[17]  Marilyn M. Li,et al.  Rescue karyotyping: a case series of array-based comparative genomic hybridization evaluation of archival conceptual tissue , 2014, Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology.

[18]  Jian-sheng Xie,et al.  Genetic analysis of first‐trimester miscarriages with a combination of cytogenetic karyotyping, microsatellite genotyping and arrayCGH , 2009, Clinical genetics.

[19]  L. Hudgins,et al.  Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[20]  K. Hirschhorn,et al.  Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: New insights from a 12-year study , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[21]  M. Sousa,et al.  An efficient protocol for the detection of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous miscarriages or foetal deaths. , 2009, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[22]  Abnormalities in spontaneous abortions detected by G-banding and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) at a national reference laboratory , 2014, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[23]  D. Warburton,et al.  Biological aging and the etiology of aneuploidy , 2005, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[24]  Clarice R. Weinberg,et al.  Incidence of early loss of pregnancy. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  K. Sankaranarayanan The role of non-disjunction in aneuploidy in man. An overview. , 1979, Mutation research.

[26]  Hongyu Zhao,et al.  Analytical and clinical validity of whole‐genome oligonucleotide array comparative genomic hybridization for pediatric patients with mental retardation and developmental delay , 2008, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[27]  H. Rehder,et al.  Cytogenetic analyses of culture failures by comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH)–Re-evaluation of chromosome aberration rates in early spontaneous abortions , 2001, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[28]  I. Lebedev,et al.  Features of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion cell culture failures detected by interphase FISH analysis , 2004, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[29]  N. de Leeuw,et al.  Best diagnostic approach for the genetic evaluation of fetuses after intrauterine death in first, second or third trimester: QF-PCR, karyotyping and/or genome wide SNP array analysis , 2014, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[30]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. , 2004, American journal of human genetics.

[31]  M. van Wely,et al.  Genetics of early miscarriage. , 2012, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[32]  N. Niikawa,et al.  Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis in first‐trimester spontaneous abortions with ‘normal’ karyotypes , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[33]  A. Brothman,et al.  Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization for Genetic Evaluation of Fetal Loss Between 10 and 20 Weeks of Gestation , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[34]  M. Qumsiyeh,et al.  Cytogenetics and mechanisms of spontaneous abortions: increased apoptosis and decreased cell proliferation in chromosomally abnormal villi , 2000, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[35]  Fang Xu,et al.  Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and array comparative genomic hybridization analyses for prenatal diagnosis of cytogenomic abnormalities , 2014, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[36]  Huntington F. Willard,et al.  Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine , 2007 .

[37]  V. Schulz,et al.  Cytogenomic mapping and bioinformatic mining reveal interacting brain expressed genes for intellectual disability , 2014, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[38]  Yuan Wei,et al.  Technology-driven and evidence-based genomic analysis for integrated pediatric and prenatal genetics evaluation. , 2013, Journal of genetics and genomics = Yi chuan xue bao.

[39]  K. Buysse,et al.  Array comparative genomic hybridization and flow cytometry analysis of spontaneous abortions and mors in utero samples , 2009, BMC Medical Genetics.

[40]  A. Diadamo,et al.  Changes in and Efficacies of Indications for Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Cytogenomic Abnormalities: 13 Years of Experience in a Single Center , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[41]  Jinsong Gao,et al.  Array-based comparative genomic hybridization is more informative than conventional karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization in the analysis of first-trimester spontaneous abortion , 2012, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[42]  S. Cavani,et al.  First-trimester euploid miscarriages analysed by array-CGH , 2013, Journal of Applied Genetics.

[43]  James H. Crichton,et al.  Oocyte development, meiosis and aneuploidy , 2015, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[44]  Grier P Page,et al.  Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.