BRIEF REPORT |
Rapid Prenatal Diagnostics in the Interphase Nucleus : Procedure and Cut-off Rates
Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, Jena, Germany
Correspondence to: Dr. Thomas Liehr, Institut für Humangenetik und Anthroplogie, Kollegiengasse 10, D-07743 Jena, Germany. E-mail: i8lith{at}mti.uni-jena.de
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
(J Histochem Cytochem 53:289291, 2005)
Key Words: prenatal diagnosis FISH centromeric probes locus-specific probes pitfalls cut-off
AT PRESENT, it takes 12.5 days to obtain a fetal karyotype from amniocytic fluid [data according to Held (2003)
for Germany 2002/2003]. Even though this is a relatively short time compared with the 3 to 4 weeks necessary in the 1980s (for review, see Hulten et al. 2003
), it is recognized that such moderately long waiting times cause psychological distress for pregnant women (Hulten et al. 2003
). This has been one of the main reasons for the introduction of molecular (cytogenetic) methods for prenatal diagnosis of the most common chromosome disorders (Table 1, column A). Because with such approaches no time-consuming cell culture is required, results can routinely be obtained within 24 hr. Quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are the two methods of choice (for review of both methods, see Hulten et al. 2003
).
|
|
In our laboratory, we analyzed 1200 cases (between 1998 and 2004) with the FISH test for rapid aneuploidy screening followed by conventional banding cytogenetics. Initially, we performed a retrospective study (Table 2) to obtain control values to serve as an orientation for the further studies. Fifty nuclei from uncultivated amniocytic fluid derived from 20 male and 20 female cases known to have a normal karyotype according to GTG banding were analyzed by the Aneu Vysion kit probe set. The range observed in these samples for 1, 2, and 3 signals for LSI 13, LSI 21, cep 18, cep X, and cepY showed high sample-specific variability (Table 2), and the lab internal cut-off rates for one and three signals were defined as 10%. Therefore, the values for a suspected trisomy were much higher than, e.g., for our own previous studies on tumor cytogenetic samples (e.g., Gebhart et al. 1993). On the basis of the data shown in Table 2 and the experience obtained from the 1200 samples studied, we developed a cut-off scheme for trisomies, as shown in Figure 1C. As long as not more than 710% of the studied cells present with three specific signals, no trisomy of the corresponding chromosomal region is suspected and a normal report is issued. At between 710% and 20%, the evaluation is regarded an "unclear result," which is with high probability a normal result. However, in such cases, we try to evaluate 100 or more nuclei for the probe in question to come to a final decision. A value of >20% is indicative of a trisomy, at least as a mosaic, or of a translocation trisomy t(21,21) (Liehr et al. 1999
). Figure 1C shows the difference between female and male fetuses and in the interpretation of the results, owing to the fact that in amniocytic fluid of male fetuses, maternal cell contamination can be detected but that in fluid of female fetuses, such contamination is not present. Therefore, the results for female fetuses should be interpreted with more care, and the cut-off rates are lower. Similar suggestions are made for the handling of XXX, XYY, or XXY results (Figure 1C).
|
In summary, the rapid prenatal aneuploidy test is, if applied with the necessary caution and with careful explanation of its possibilities and limitations, a powerful tool for the clinician in the care of pregnant women. In the future it may become possible to extend this FISH test to samples of chorionic villi, as demonstrated in a recent report (Goumy et al. 2004).
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
Received for publication May 17, 2004; accepted June 6, 2004
![]() |
Literature Cited |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Eiben B, Trawicki W, Hammans W, Goebel R, Pruggmayer M, Epplen JT (1999) Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Evaluation of >3,000 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther 14:193197[CrossRef][Medline]
Gebhart E, Trautmann U, Reichardt S, Liehr T (1993) Chromosomal heterogeneity of aneuploid leukemic cell populations detected by conventional karyotyping and by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Anticancer Res 13:18571862[Medline]
Goumy C, Bonnet-Dupeyron MN, Cherasse Y, Laurichesse H, Jaffray JY, Lacroute G, Geneix A, et al. (2004) Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for a rapid first-trimester prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 24:249256[CrossRef][Medline]
Held KR (2003) QS Zytogenetik Bericht 2002/2003. Med Genet 15:420421
Hulten MA, Dhanjal S, Pertl B (2003) Rapid and simple prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome disorders: advantages and disadvantages of the molecular methods FISH and QF-PCR. Reproduction 126:279297
Liehr T, Beensen V, Hauschild R, Ziegler M, Hartmann I, Starke H, Heller A, et al. (2001) Pitfalls of rapid prenatal diagnosis using the interphase nucleus. Prenat Diagn 21:419421[CrossRef][Medline]
Liehr T, Schreyer I, Neumann A, Beensen V, Ziegler M, Hartmann I, Starke H, et al. (2002) Two more possible pitfalls of rapid prenatal diagnostics using interphase nuclei. Prenat Diagn 22:497499[CrossRef][Medline]
Liehr T, Starke H, Beensen V, Kahler C, Harbich M, Brude E, Ziegler M, et al. (1999) Translocation trisomy dup(21q) and free trisomy 21 can be distinguished by interphase-FISH. Int J Mol Med 3:1114[Medline]
Tepperberg J, Pettenati MJ, Rao PN, Lese CM, Rita D, Wyandt H, Gersen S, et al. (2001) Prenatal diagnosis using interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): 2-year multi-center retrospective study and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 21:293301[CrossRef][Medline]
Weremowicz S, Sandstrom DJ, Morton CC, Niedzwiecki CA, Sandstrom MM, Bieber FR (2001) Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for rapid detection of aneuploidy: experience in 911 prenatal cases. Prenat Diagn 21:262269[CrossRef][Medline]