Clinical Application Assessment of KaryoLite BoBs Combined with QF-PCR in the Detection of Products of Conception

SU Hang, ZHU Hong-mei, LI Ling-ping. et al

Abstract

To assess the accuracy and discuss the feasibility of KaryoLite bacterial artificial chromosome on beads (KL-BoBs) and quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) in genetic testing of products of conception (POC) by comparing with the chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) test results. MethodsEighty-one cases of abortion samples were collected in the prenatal diagnosis center of West China Second University Hospital in Sichuan University from May to August 2016, including 61 cases of placenta tissues, 19 cases of fetal muscle tissues and 1 case of fetal liver tissue. KL-BoBs and QF-PCR were used to detect the samples. The results were compared with those of CMA test to evaluate the accuracy of KL-BoBs and QF-PCR. Results Of the 81 POC samples, the results of 70 samples tested by KL-BoBs was consistent with that of CMA. Among them, 36 cases were normal karyotype and 34 cases were abnormal karyotypes (aneuploidy). Triploid could not been detected by KL-BoBs (the results were shown 2 cases were normal karyotype and 5 cases were aneuploidy), whereas CMA and QF-PCR could be detected. Copy number variation of small segments could not been detected by KL-Bobs. Four cases of copy number variationwere detected by CMA.Compared with CMA, the positive coincident rate of KL-BoBs combined with QF-PCR was 91.1% (41/45), the negative coincidence rate was 100% (36/36). The accuracy rate of KL-BoBs was 86.4% (70/81), the false positive was 0% and the false negative was 13.3% (6/45). Whereas both KL-BoBs and QF-PCR were simultaneously detected, the accuracy rate would be improved to 95.1% (77/81). ConclusionThe accuracy rate of KL-BoBs combined with QF-PCR was high for testing early pregnancy abortion tissue. It can be used as a first-tier test.

 

Keywords: Bacterial artificial chromosome on beads, Quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction, Products of conception, Aneusomies 

 

Full Text:

PDF


References


WARREN JE. TUROK DK. MAXWELL TM, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridisation for genetic evaluation of fetal loss between 10 and 20 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol,2009,114(5): 1093-10102.

BAXTER L, ADAYAPALAM N. A comparative study of standard cytogenetic evaluation and molecular karyotyping for products of conception. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2013,22( 4 ): 228- 235.

RODGERS CS, CREASY MR. FITCHETT M, et al. Solid tissue culture for cytogenetic analysis; a collaborative survey for the association of clinical cytogenetics. J Clin Pathol, 1996,49(8);638-641.

SHEARER BM, THORLAND EC, CARLSON AW. Et al. Reflex fluorescent in situ hybridization testing for unsuccessful product of conception cultures; a retrospective analysis of 5555 samples attempted by conventional cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization. Genet Med,2011.13(6);545-552.

MENASHA J, LEVY B, HIRSCHHORN K. et al. Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med,2005,7(4):251-263.

MILLER DT, ADAM MP, ARADHYA S, et al. Consensus statement; chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet,2010,86(5) ; 749- 764.

CHOY KW. SETLUR SR. LEE C, et al. The impact of human copy number variation on a new era of genetic testing. BJOG,2010, 117(4):391-398.

BRUNO DL, BURGESS T, REN H, et al. High- throughput analysis of chromosome abnormality in spontaneous miscarriage using an MLPA subtelomere assay with an ancillary FISH test for polyploidy. Am J Med Genet A,2006,140(24);2786-2793.

DONAGHUE C, MANN K, DOCHERTY Z, et al. Combined QF-PCR and MLPA molecular analysis of miscarriage products; an efficient and robust alternative to karyotype analysis. Prenat Diagn,2010,30(2): 133-137.

WAPNER RJ. LEWIS D. Genetics and metabolic causes of stillbirth. Semin Perinatol,2002,26(1):70-74.

PEREZ-DURAN j, NAJERA Z,TRUJILLO-CABRERA Y. et al. Aneusomy detection with Karyolite-Bac on Beads? is a cost-efficient and high throughput strategy in the molecular analyses of the early pregnancy conception losses. MolCytogeneb 2015,8:63[2016-05-10].https://molecularcytogenetics. biomedcentral. com/articles/10. 1186/ si3039-015-0168-x. doi: 10. 1186/sl3039-015-0168-x.

GRATI FR. GOMES DM, GANESAMOORTHY D. et al. Application of a new molecular technique for the genetic evaluation of products of conception. Prenat Diagn. 2013,33 (1): 32-41.

CAR AMINS MC, SAVILLE T, SHAKESHAFT R, et al. A comparison of molecular and cytogenetic techniques for the diagnosis of pregnancy loss. Genet Med.2011,13(1);46-51.

JOBANPUTRA V, ESTEVES C, SOBRINO A, et al. Using FISH to increase the yield and accuracy of karyotypes from spontaneous abortion specimens. Prenat Diagn,2011,31 (8):755-759.

CIRIGLIANO V, EJARQUE M, CANADAS MP. et al. Clinical application of multiplex quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) for the rapid prenatal detection of common chromosome aneuploidies. Mol Hum Reprod,2001,7(10):1001-1006.

MANN К. FOX SP, ABBS SJ, et al. Development and implementation of a new rapid aneuploidy diagnostic service within the UK National Health Service and implications for the future of prenatal diagnosis. Lancet, 2001, 358 ( 9287 ): 1057-1061.

SHEATH KU DUFFY L. ASQUITH P. et al. Bacterial artificial chromosomes ( BACs )-on-Beads™ as a diagnostic platform for the rapid aneuploidy screening of products of conception. Mol Med Rep.2013, 8(2);650-654.

CAMPOS-GALINDO I. GARCiA-HERRERO S, MARTINEZ-CONEJERO JA, et al. Molecular analysis of products of conception obtained by hysteroembryoscopy from infertile couples. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2015, 32 ( 5 ); 839- 848.

PAXTON CN, BROTHMAN AR, GEIERSBACH KB. Rapid aneusomy detection in products of conception using the KaryoLite™ BACs-on-Beads™ assay. Prenat Diagn,2013,33 (1): 25-31.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.