Prenatal diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome: possible end of the experimental phase for amniotic fluid.

We have had experience with 260 prenatal diagnosis cases for the fragile X syndrome [fra(X)]; amniotic fluid was received in 230. There was a documented family history of fra(X) in 148 amniotic fluid cases. Our sample includes 91 males. Eleven were correctly identified as fra(X)-positive and 2 were false-negative. Eight of 57 females were fra(X) positive and one was a false-negative. CVS were received in 21 cases with a family history of fra(X), and there were 2 positive results in females and 3 false-negative results in males which were ultimately detected by means of molecular analysis or a subsequent amniotic fluid specimen. RFLPs were utilized in 29 cases (amniotic fluid and CVS); RFLPs identified 2 false-negative cytogenetic results in CVS. Two male fetuses were found to have a high probability of being affected by means of RFLPs, but on the basis of prenatal and postnatal negative fra(X) cytogenetic results and subsequent normal growth and development, they are either unaffected transmitting males or are double recombinants. Three female fetuses were also found to be cytogenetically negative in CVS but had a 90%, 93%, and 99% probability of being affected by RFLPs. On the basis of the data, it can be concluded: 1. Amniotic fluid experience is adequate to eliminate the "experimental" designation providing the limitations are understood and an experienced laboratory is involved. 2. Chorionic villus cells for cytogenetic analysis should still be considered experimental. 3. Negative results with CVS should be confirmed by molecular methods and/or by cytogenetic analysis of another tissue. 4. Multiple approaches can maximize reliability of fra(X) prenatal diagnosis.     

Experience with multiple approaches to the prenatal diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome: amniotic fluid, chorionic villi, fetal blood and molecular methods

We have had experience with 160 prenatal diagnosis cases for the fragile X syndrome [fra(X)] or Martin-Bell Syndrome. In 140, amniotic fluid was utilized; 98 had a documented family history of fra(X). The 94 completed cases included 4 no growth; 56 males of which 7 were fra(X)-positive and 2 false-negative; 38 females of which 5 were fra(X) positive. There was no fra(X) positive result when a family history of mental retardation was not documented as fra(X). Molecular methods (RFLPs) were utilized in 10 amniotic fluid and 5 chorionic villus specimens (CVS). Percutaneous umbilical blood sampling was used in 2 negative cases and 1 fra(X) positive case because of timing, tissue culture failure or confirmation of another method. CVS were received in 13 cases, and RFLPs were utilized in 5 of the CVS cases. There was no positive fra(X) CVS chromosome result in males, 1 positive result in a female, but 2 false negatives were detected by RFLPs. On the basis of the results, it can be concluded that cytogenetic and molecular methods are complementary and best used together and that multiple approaches can enhance the efficiency and reliability of fra(X) prenatal diagnosis.     

How can the frequency of false-negative findings in prenatal diagnoses of fra(X) be reduced: experience with first trimester chorionic villi sampling

We report on 12 prenatal diagnoses performed between weeks 10 and 13 on normal women with a well-documented family history of the Martin-Bell syndrome. Seven were obligate and three were potential carriers. One male and 2 female fetuses were found to be fragile X [fra(X)]-positive. The diagnoses were confirmed in fibroblasts or lymphocytes after interruption or postnatally. In one fra(X)-negative female fetus, the analysis of linked DNA markers indicated that most probably she was a heterozygote. Reexamination after birth gave a fra(X)-positive result. Hence this was a case of a false-negative prenatal fra(X) result. The occurrence of false-negative cytogenetic results represents a common problem that limits the sensitivity of prenatal diagnostics in the Martin-Bell syndrome. A study of linked DNA markers can improve the reliability of negative cytogenetic results in first trimester prenatal diagnosis. In case of doubt, the chromosomes could be reexamined after fetal blood sampling.     

Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis of the fragile X chromosome: feasibility and speed of in situ clonal method in amniotic fluid cell tissue culture.

We have had experience with over 300 amniotic fluid specimens for prenatal diagnosis for the fragile X chromosome [fra(X)], and the flask method of tissue culture has been routinely utilized requiring extended tissue culture periods of 3-4 weeks. The use of the in situ clonal method of tissue culture for routine prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis of amniotic fluid cells has shortened tissue culture time and resulted in more rapid reporting; however, it has not been widely employed for fra(X) prenatal diagnosis. The simultaneous use of both methods of tissue culture has resulted in the detection of 2 cytogenetically fra(X) positive cases in amniotic fluid, with more rapid reporting and satisfactory expression of the fra(X) with the in situ clonal method. Thus, the use of the in situ clonal method of tissue culture for fra(X) prenatal diagnosis in amniotic fluid cells is feasible, faster and can serve as a more rapid cytogenetic adjunct to the newer DNA testing methods.     

Recent experience in prenatal fra(X) detection

At least 35 cases of prenatal fra(X) diagnosis have been confirmed and reported. Amniotic fluid, fetal blood and chorion -ic villus samples have exhibited fra(X) (q27.3) in cultures from 26 males and 9 females. Here we have detected fra(X) in female and male amniotic fluid specimens, AF1/fra(X),X and AF2/fra(X),Y, respectively, and a male CVS/fra(X),Y using both FUdR and excess thymidine (THY) to demonstrate the marker chromosome. Both FUdR and THY detected fra(X) and usually FUdR was superior to THY with the exception of placental cultures. It was important to examine more than one culture per protocol since no fra(X) was observed in one AF2 FUdR culture while another exhibited 19.2% expression. Similarly, confirmation studies in lung fibroblast cultures for AF2 exhibited 4.3% fra(X) in one lab while another found negative results. A similar observation in whole blood cultures was also made recently by us. In addition, we have recently experienced our first false negative fra(X),X prenatal diagnosis. We have observed another case where only one cell in 300 exhibited fra(X) where the male fetus was 50% at-risk and was referred to us after the 20th week of gestation by sonography. On the basis of our experience we recommend the following: 1) the excess THY fra(X) induction system is effective but not superior to FUdR; 2) at least two duplicate cultures per induction system should be analyzed for the marker chromosome to avoid the possibility of false-negative diagnosis; 3) where fra(X) is not demonstrated or is present in very low frequencies in CVS and/or amniotic fluid cultures, complementary DNA marker studies and/or fetal blood cultures must be made available; 4) gestational age dating by ultrasonography is recommended as early as possible.     

Prenatal diagnosis of the fra(X) syndrome

The fra(X) syndrome is one of the most common causes of mental retardation, and validation of the reliability and feasibility of making the prenatal diagnosis of this disorder is important for genetic counseling and prevention. We have received a total of 74 amniotic fluid specimens for prenatal diagnosis of fra(X) from worldwide sources. Results were obtained on 68 specimens of which 43 had a documented family history of the fra(X) syndrome. Of the 43 specimens, 23 were male and 4 were prenatally diagnosed as being affected. On the basis of the results, several conclusions follow: 1.) At least 3 different tissue culture methods should be utilized. 2.) At least 150 cells should be scored, preferably 50 from each of 3 different tissue culture methods or 100 from each method if less than 3 methods are used. 3.) While the test appears to be reliable, it should still be considered to be experimental until larger numbers are obtained with completed follow-up of cases.     

Second trimester prenatal diagnosis of the fragile X

The fra(X) chromosome was detected in 5 samples of amniotic fluid cells in a series of 23 pregnancies at risk. The prenatal results were confirmed in 2 male abortuses, one with a relatively high and one with a very low frequency of expression in both amniocytes and fetal tissue. In a third male fetus with low expression in amniocytes, the fra(X) was not detected in the fetal tissues tested. In another male with low expression in amniocytes the fra(X) was not detected after birth. In one female with a low expression in amniocytes, a very high frequency (28%) was detected in cord blood after birth. Low expression of the fra(X) was found in a 4-year-old normally developed girl, where the prenatal results had been negative. In 4 males and 4 females the negative prenatal diagnoses were confirmed after birth. This study indicates that prenatal diagnosis of the fragile X after amniocentesis may be complicated, either due to technical problems related to the use of amniotic fluid cells, or due to genetic heterogeneity, or both. Part of this heterogeneity could be due to the existence of normal male transmitters. Also, it seems that the frequency of expression in amniocytes from female carriers can not be used for the prediction of the frequency in blood after birth.     

Fra(X) prenatal diagnosis: are endoreduplicated and polyploid cells useful diagnostic criteria?

Cytogenetic and molecular protocols for prenatal ascertainment of the fragile X syndrome and the associated fragile site at Xq27.3 are relatively reliable. Any new diagnostic method which becomes available still elicits much interest. Kimchi-Sarfaty et al. [1991] reported an increase in frequency of endoreduplication and polyploidy in fra(X) lymphoblasts and amniocytes when cultured with methotrexate (MTX) or fluorodeoxyuridine. Recently we analyzed the endoreduplication/polyploidy system using amniotic fluid, chorionic villus, and fibroblasts from fra(X) positive abortus cell cultures and from control samples. We observed no increased expression of endoreduplicated or polyploid cells in fra(X) positive amniocytes after exposure to MTX. The data presented here clearly dispute the value of endoreduplication/polyploid scoring as a diagnostic aid in prenatal fra(X) analysis.     

Fragile X screening program in New York State

Most fragile X [fra(X)] males in New York State have not been identified. Hence, a large number of female relatives are unaware of their risks for having an affected child. A program was established in New York State in 1987 to screen for the fra(X) syndrome in mentally retarded males with living relatives. The goal of the program is to identify affected males and inform their families about the diagnosis. In this way relatives would be able to assess their risks for having a fra(X) male. In order to identify the males a screening form was developed to assess 10 features which included physical characteristics, behavior, and family history. Males who exhibited at least 5 of these manifestations were selected for cytogenetic analysis. Any male who had macroorchidism or a family history of mental retardation was also included. A total of 995 males have been screened of which 352 (35%) were selected for cytogenetic analyses. Seventeen (10.5%) of the 161 completed studies were positive for fra(X). A large number of possible female carriers were identified in the families of the propositi. This program identifies fra(X) males in a population of the mentally retarded for whom there had been no previous diagnosis. By using a two-step procedure, it is possible to screen a large population of the mentally retarded for fra(X) without testing each male cytogenetically.     

FastFISH: technique for ultrarapid fluorescence in situ hybridization on uncultured amniocytes yielding results within 2 h of amniocentesis

Rapid aneuploidy detection methods allow prenatal diagnosis results to be released within 48 h, but not on the same day as the invasive test. We aimed to develop a rapid fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method (FastFISH) that releases accurate results on the same day as amniocentesis. FastFISH was optimized to be completed within 2 h of sample collection using CEP and LSI probes for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, Y and DiGeorge syndrome (DGS). The technique was tested on 100 consecutive amniotic fluid samples in a blinded study. It was also validated as a 1-day molecular genetic test on three representative fetal tissue samples: chorionic villus, amniotic fluid and fetal blood. In the blinded study, FastFISH results were ready within 2 h of sample collection. Of the 100 amniotic fluid samples, 49 male and 50 female fetuses were identified. One fetus was 47, XXY (Klinefelter syndrome). Three fetuses had trisomy 21. One fetus suspected of DGS by ultrasound was identified as normal. Results of FastFISH analyses in all 100 cases were concordant with their karyotypes (100% accuracy; lower 95% CI, 97.05%). In the 1-day test validation, all results were released on the same day and were concordant with their respective karyotypes. FastFISH allows results to be released on the same day as amniocentesis. It represents the necessary development for a 1-day prenatal diagnosis service.     

Prenatal diagnosis of the fragile X--the Australasian experience

Identification of increasing numbers of females heterozygous for fragile X linked mental retardation together with improved genetic counselling is creating a growing demand for prenatal diagnosis of fra(X). However, present cytogenetic techniques are somewhat unreliable and our collaborative approach has endeavoured to improve quality of cell culture systems and the sensitivity of fra(X) detection. Since 1985 we have exchanged cell cultures between our laboratories for verification of diagnostic results and comparison of induction techniques and have benefitted from larger numbers of cells scored for fra(X). Our 50 cases represent almost all of such studies undertaken in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand). Ten cases were unequivocally fra(X) positive; there was discrepancy between laboratories in 4 cases and one false-negative case. We propose a protocol to enhance fra(X) detection and conclude that, provided care is exercised, couples at risk of a fra(X) pregnancy can benefit from prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis.     

Improved prenatal diagnosis of congenital human cytomegalovirus infection by a modified nested polymerase chain reaction

Two major variables may cause false-negative results in prenatal diagnosis of congenital human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) infection: sensitivity of the technique(s) used; and time elapsed between maternal infection and antenatal testing. Previous results indicated that rapid HCMV isolation from amniotic fluid samples and viral DNA detection in amniotic fluid by nested polymerase chain reaction (nPCR) had comparable levels of sensitivity (69.2% and 76.9%, respectively). The nPCR protocol was reviewed following two additional false-negative antenatal diagnosis in a twin pregnancy during which two procedures were performed at 18 and 23 weeks of gestation, respectively. In the new assay, multiple (instead of single) and 100 (instead of 20) μl amniotic fluid aliquots were individually amplified and tested by nPCR. By using this approach, low DNA levels (1–10 genome equivalents) were detected in 1–5/8 replicates of amniotic fluid samples taken from both twins during both procedures. In addition, viral DNA was detected in 5/6 replicates from two amniotic fluid samples still available from two previous false-negative cases. However, nPCR on multiple amniotic fluid replicates did not anticipate positive prenatal results in a retrospective case, which required two procedures for correct diagnosis and, when prospectively employed, did not avoid one additional false-negative prenatal diagnosis 8 weeks after maternal infection. Thus, delayed intrauterine transmission of the infection may be a potential cause of false-negative results. However, the combination of a very sensitive technique with appropriate timing of prenatal testing can substantially increase the reliability of prenatal diagnosis results. J. Med. Virol. 56:99–103, 1998. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Experience with prenatal fragile X detection

We have attempted the prenatal detection of the fra(X) 9 times. Three fra(X) positive fetuses have been diagnosed: 2 males and one female. The diagnosis on the 2 males has been confirmed. The testes of the 2 fra(X) positive fetuses appeared large for gestational age. However, results of anthropometric, bone age, anatomical and neurohistological studies were normal. Normal outcome was confirmed after birth in 2 males and one female on the basis of whole blood fra(X) studies. A presumptively positive female and a presumptively negative female await confirmation. Two presumptively negative males remain unborn. Further experience is needed to establish the reliability of the prenatal detection of fra(X) (q27).     

Prenatal detection of fra(X)(q27.3) in female identical twins: reliability of low level cytogenetic prenatal expression in females.

Recently, we detected fra(X)(q27.3) in amniocyte cultures from female identical twins. The pregnant woman did not exhibit fra(X)(q27.3) in whole blood cultures but was the sister of 2 affected brothers. DNA marker analyses showed that she was a carrier of FRAXA. Amniotic fluid cultures (AFCs) from twins A and B exhibited the fragile X [fra(X)] chromosome, but the level of cytogenetic expression was very low in twin A's AFCs. DNA marker studies indicated both twins were carriers of FRAXA. Peripheral umbilical blood sample (PUBS) cultures exhibited fra(X)(q27.3) at a frequency of about 10% for both twins. DNA fingerprinting indicated that the twins were identical, confirming the clinical impression, with a very thin separating amniotic membrane. To our knowledge, this is the only report of prenatal fra(X)(q27.3) detection in female identical twins, and the second report of identical twin detection [Rocchi et al., 1985]. We have diagnosed prenatally fra(X)(q27.3) in 5 female fetuses using AFCs. The average fra(X) frequency was 4% for these positive female fetuses with a range of 0.5% to 8.5%. Follow-up whole blood studies confirmed our original results at an average fra(X) frequency of 25%. In conclusion: 1. Low frequencies, perhaps 1 or 2%, or a few positive cells in AFCs, are likely to increase in magnitude when confirmed in whole blood cultures either pre- or postnatally. 2. It appears likely that the risk is low for false positive results in AFCs when low frequencies of fra(X)(q27.3) are encountered.     

应用分子生物学技术产前诊断Down综合征

目的 探讨应用PCR分子生物学方法产前诊断Down综合征（Down syndrome,DS)。方法 取产前诊断病例：羊水100例，绒毛16例。提取DNA，PCR扩增21号染色体的6个多态位点，电泳，膜转移，等位基因位点分析，诊断。结果 正常人为两种带型：杂合型显示两条带，纯合型一条带。Down综合征患者为三种带型：完全杂合型显示三条带，半杂合型两条带（信号增强的2：1带），纯合型一条带。100例羊水中2例阳性，16例绒毛标本中1例阳性，3例患者，至少有2个位点检出三个等 基因，患者为2个位点时，表现2：1带型；无一例正常检出三个等位基因。所有结果均与细胞染色体核型检查相符。结论 本分子生物学方法产前诊断DS简便、快速、可行，是一种值得推广的方法。     

Rapid antibody test for prenatal diagnosis of fragile X syndrome on amniotic fluid cells: a new appraisal.

Fragile X syndrome is caused by mutations in the FMR1 gene and is one of the most frequent forms of inherited mental retardation in males. Postnatal and prenatal diagnosis of fragile X syndrome is feasible by direct DNA analysis. A new approach to prenatal diagnosis of fragile X syndrome in amniotic fluid cells is described, using a rapid and simple antibody test on uncultured amniotic fluid cells. The test requires 1 ml of amniotic fluid and the results of this antibody test are available on the same day as the amniocentesis.     

The use of early simultaneous percutaneous umbilical blood sampling (PUBS) and amniocentesis for prenatal fragile X chromosome diagnosis

Early simultaneous percutaneous umbilical blood sampling (PUBS) and amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis were undertaken for the first time in a 17-week gestation fetus at risk for the fragile X [fra (X)] syndrome. Metaphase spreads from 300 fetal lymphocytes were examined within 5 days following PUBS, while approximately 5 weeks were required for the analysis of 148 amniocytes. The chromosomes were interpreted as normal (46,XX) and the fetus as fragile X-negative at the time of prenatal diagnosis. This was cytogenetically confirmed after delivery of a healthy term female infant. Our results suggest that early PUBS may become a useful adjunct to amniocentesis because of shorter culture time and earlier diagnosis.     

Prenatal diagnosis and carrier detection in fragile X.

Prenatal diagnosis was performed in 81 cases at risk for the fragile X syndrome. There were 12 fra(X)-positive cases, two of which showed low expression in cultured amniotic fluid cells. FUdR and high thymidine were used for induction of fra(X) (q27.3) expression in all cases. In 21 cases linkage studies were performed, 7 with probes for the loci DXS52, DXS98 and DXS105, 13 with probes for DXS369 and DXS296, DXS304 or DXS374 and one with the probe Do33 for DXS465. In 11 of these cases linkage analysis gave risk figures higher than 95% or lower than 5%, all in concordance with the cytogenetic findings. Discordance was found in three cases studied earlier, the two cases with low expression mentioned above and one cytogenetically normal case, which were now restudied with the new probes. RFLP-studies and linkage analysis was also performed for 24 cytogenetically fra(X)-negative females having a 50%, 25% or 12.5% risk of being carriers according to pedigree data. In 15 cases the risk dropped to 1% or less. Six of these women were pregnant and had asked for prenatal diagnosis but after genetic counseling prenatal diagnosis was avoided.     

Three families with high expression of a fragile site at Xq27.3, lack of anomalies at the FMR-1 CpG island, and no clear phenotypic association.

We report on 3 families where the presence and segregation at high frequency of a fragile Xq27.3 site is not associated with the mutations and methylation anomalies typically seen in the fragile X [Fra(X)] syndrome. In one family, a folate insensitive fragile site was associated with Robin sequence in the propositus. In a second family a fra(X) negative mother has two fra(X) positive sons (one mentally retarded and the other newborn). The third family presents very high expression of a folate sensitive site, unlinked to mental retardation, and was described previously by Voelckel et al. [1989]. The fragile sites in these or similar families recently described must be different from the one associated with the fra(X) syndrome. Their association with a clinical phenotype or with mental retardation is certainly not consistent, and may represent an ascertainment bias. However, the relatively high frequency with which they have been found among previously diagnosed fra(X) families suggests that, at least in some cases, the association with mental impairment may be significant. In two families reported up to now, a male with high expression of such variant fra(X) site failed to transmit it to his daughter, which may reflect an imprinting effect. Previously diagnosed families should be reinvestigated before direct DNA analysis is used for prenatal or carrier diagnosis of the fra(X) syndrome.