Prenatal diagnosis in known fragile X carriers

Laboratory testing for fragile X, 2021 revision: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Molecular genetic testing of the FMR1 gene is commonly performed in clinical laboratories. Pathogenic variants in the FMR1 gene are associated with fragile X syndrome, fragile X-associated tremor ataxia syndrome (FXTAS), and fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency (FXPOI). This document provides updated information regarding FMR1 pathogenic variants, including prevalence, genotype-phenotype correlations, and variant nomenclature. Methodological considerations are provided for Southern blot analysis and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of FMR1, including triplet repeat-primed and methylation-specific PCR.The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee has the mission of maintaining high technical standards for the performance and interpretation of genetic tests. In part, this is accomplished by the publication of the document ACMG Technical Standards for Clinical Genetics Laboratories, which is now maintained online ( http://www.acmg.net ). This subcommittee also reviews the outcome of national proficiency testing in the genetics area and may choose to focus on specific diseases or methodologies in response to those results. Accordingly, the subcommittee selected fragile X syndrome to be the first topic in a series of supplemental sections, recognizing that it is one of the most frequently ordered genetic tests and that it has many alternative methods with different strengths and weaknesses. This document is the fourth update to the original standards and guidelines for fragile X testing that were published in 2001, with revisions in 2005 and 2013, respectively.This versionClarifies the clinical features associated with different FMRI variants (Section 2.3)Discusses important reporting considerations (Section 3.3.1.3)Provides updates on technology (Section 4.1).

ACMG Standards and Guidelines for fragile X testing: a revision to the disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics

Molecular genetic testing of the FMR1 gene is commonly performed in clinical laboratories. Mutations in the FMR1 gene are associated with fragile X syndrome, fragile X tremor ataxia syndrome, and premature ovarian insufficiency. This document provides updated information regarding FMR1 gene mutations, including prevalence, genotype-phenotype correlation, and mutation nomenclature. Methodological considerations are provided for Southern blot analysis and polymerase chain reaction amplification of the FMR1 gene, including triplet repeat-primed and methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. In addition to report elements, examples of laboratory reports for various genotypes are also included.

Compound heterozygosity at the FMR1 gene

Individuals affected with Fragile X syndrome are usually characterized at the DNA level by the presence of at least 200 CGG repeats in the 5' untranslated region of the FMR1 gene; this number of repeats is defined as a full mutation. Repeats that number 50-200 usually define those with premutations and are termed unaffected carriers. We report here a compound heterozygous female who carried CGG repeats in the FMR1 gene that fall within the premutation and full mutation ranges. The former appears to have been inherited from the father, whereas the latter is an expansion of the premutation carried by the proband's mother. Therefore, the offspring of the proband will carry a significant risk of being affected with Fragile X syndrome, and the paternal uncle and any cousins should be counselled for being at risk for this syndrome.

A simple multiplex FRAXA, FRAXE, and FRAXF PCR assay convenient for wide screening programs

FRAXA, FRAXE, and FRAXF are folate-sensitive fragile sites originally discovered in patients with X-linked mental retardation. The FMR1 gene, whose first exon includes the FRAXA site on Xq27.3, accounts for 15-20% of all X-linked forms of mental retardation. Loss of expression of FMR2, a gene adjacent to the FRAXE site on Xq28, is correlated with FRAXE expansion in some mild mentally retarded patients. FRAXF is a fragile site whose expression has not been associated with any pathological phenotype. The fragility in all three sites is caused by expansions of CGG repeats adjacent to hypermethylated CpG islands. The prevalence of FRAXA, FRAXE, and FRAXF remains uncertain because of the lack of a simple and cost-effective test allowing wide screening programs. For the same reason, the real phenotype-genotype correlations in FRAXE and FRAXF are uncertain as well. We have developed a rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay in which hypermethylated CpG islands adjacent to FRAXA, FRAXE, and FRAXF are displayed. The test is very simple and cost-effective, requires only 30 microl of peripheral blood, and can be used for performing diagnoses, postnatal and prenatal, and for screening large groups of control and mentally retarded males and newborn boys.

The fragile X syndrome

The fragile X syndrome is characterised by mental retardation, behavioural features, and physical features, such as a long face with large protruding ears and macro-orchidism. In 1991, after identification of the fragile X mental retardation (FMR1) gene, the cytogenetic marker (a fragile site at Xq27.3) became replaced by molecular diagnosis. The fragile X syndrome was one of the first examples of a "novel" class of disorders caused by a trinucleotide repeat expansion. In the normal population, the CGG repeat varies from six to 54 units. Affected subjects have expanded CGG repeats (>200) in the first exon of the FMR1 gene (the full mutation). Phenotypically normal carriers of the fragile X syndrome have a repeat in the 43 to 200 range (the premutation). The cloning of the FMR1 gene led to the characterisation of its protein product FMRP, encouraged further clinical studies, and opened up the possibility of more accurate family studies and fragile X screening programmes.

DNA diagnosis for the practicing obstetrician

Laboratory advances in molecular genetics have resulted in numerous clinical applications for DNA analysis. Currently, because of cost, complexity, and resource limitations, DNA analysis is not used routinely for prenatal screening, but rather is targeted towards families at risk for an inherited condition. This article discusses the types of DNA analyses that are currently performed, the possible tissue sources of DNA for prenatal diagnosis, and the indications for DNA testing in obstetric practice. Internet addresses for the most up-to-date genetic information on a specific condition are given in this article.

The sensitivity of allele-specific polymerase chain reaction can obviate concern of maternal contamination when fetal samples are genotyped for immune cytopenic disorders

OBJECTIVE

Fetuses at risk for immune cytopenic disorders can be identified by molecular genotyping assays. To better understand the impact of maternal contamination on genotyping results, the levels of contamination that are routinely encountered during prenatal testing of fetal samples and the sensitivity of allele-specific polymerase chain reaction in detecting paternal alloalleles were examined.

STUDY DESIGN

Reconstitution experiments were performed to define the sensitivity of allele-specific polymerase chain reaction assays. The sensitivities of allele-specific polymerase chain reactions and polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism were compared for detection of the factor V Leiden mutation.

RESULTS

A quantitative analysis of variable-number tandem repeat loci revealed maternal contamination in 4 of 56 fetal samples. Contaminating deoxyribonucleic acid compromised genotyping results when it comprised between 94% and 99% of the total deoxyribonucleic acid. Allele-specific polymerase chain reaction was found to be the more sensitive technique (0.8% sensitivity vs 13% sensitivity).

CONCLUSION

These results illustrate that allele-specific polymerase chain reaction is well suited for reliable prenatal identification of fetuses at risk of immune cytopenic disorders.

Fragile X syndrome and fragile XE mental retardation

There are two forms of mental handicap associated with fragile sites on the end of the long arm of the X chromosome. The well known common disorder Fragile X syndrome is associated with FRAXA and a rare non-specific form of mental handicap is associated with FRAXE. The cytogenetics of these fragile sites is considered. For Fragile X syndrome details are given of the molecular genetics, inheritance patterns, genetic counselling, methods for diagnosis of index cases, carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis. Series of prenatal diagnoses are briefly reviewed and technical and biological problems associated with this procedure are considered. Prenatal diagnosis of Fragile X syndrome using molecular genetic techniques is now a well established procedure, with the only significant problem being the inability to accurately predict phenotype in female fetuses with full mutations. Few prenatal diagnoses of Fragile XE non-specific mental retardation have been recorded. In principle the technical aspects of such a prenatal diagnosis should be little different from those for Fragile X syndrome. Incomplete knowledge of the phenotypic effect of the full mutation in males and females would make phenotypic prediction for any fetus shown to have such a mutation very difficult. At this stage all that could be determined with precision is that the mutation was present or absent in the fetus. Possible consequences of this are discussed.

A fragile X mosaic male with a cryptic full mutation detected in epithelium but not in blood

Individuals with developmental delay who are found to have only fragile X premutations present an interpretive dilemma. The presence of the premutation could be an unrelated coincidence, or it could be a sign of mosaicism involving a full mutation in other tissues. To investigate three cases of this type, buccal epithelium was collected on cytology brushes for Southern blot analysis. In one notable case, the blood specimen of a boy with developmental delay was found to have a premutation of 0.1 extra kb, which was shown by PCR to be an allele of 60 +/- 3 repeats. There was no trace of a full mutation. Mosaicism was investigated as an explanation for his developmental delay, although the condition was confounded by prematurity and other factors. The cheek epithelium DNA was found to contain the premutation, plus a methylated full mutation with expansions of 0.9 and 1.5 extra kb. The three populations were nearly equal in frequency but the 1.5 kb expansion was the most prominent. Regardless of whether this patient has clinical signs of fragile X syndrome, he illustrates that there can be gross tissue-specific differences in molecular sub-populations in mosaic individuals. Because brain and epithelium are more closely related embryonically than are brain and blood, cryptic full mutations in affected individuals may be evident in epithelial cells while being absent or difficult to detect in blood. This phenomenon may explain some atypical cases of the fragile X phenotype associated with premutations or near-normal DNA findings.

Molecular fragile X screening in normal populations

In December, 1993, we initiated a pilot project in which DNA fragile X (fraX) testing was offered during routine prenatal or genetic counseling to all pregnant women seen at the Genetics & IVF Institute, most of whom were referred for the indication of advanced maternal age. A brochure on fragile X syndrome was sent to each patient prior to her appointment and was reviewed by a counselor or physician during the counseling session. As of June 1995, 3,345 patients were offered testing; 474 women with no identified family history of mental retardation or learning disability and 214 women with a positive family history accepted the test on a self-pay basis. The second population screened was 271 potential donors in our anonymous egg donor program. DNA from blood was tested by Southern blot using EcoRI/EagI and StB12.3. If an expansion was detected, CGG repeat number was determined by PCR-based analysis. Among the 474 patients with unremarkable family histories, three fraX carriers were identified (repeat sizes = 60+), whereas none were found in the 214 patients with a positive family history. Among the potential egg donors, two high borderline patients were identified (repeat sizes = between 50 and 59). Our ongoing study indicates that screening of pregnant or preconceptual populations for fraX carrier status using DNA testing is accepted by many patients and is an important addition to current medical practice.