Abrams L.,National Fragile X Foundation |
Cronister A.,Integrated Genetics |
Brown W.T.,Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities |
Tassone F.,University of California at Davis |
And 12 more authors.
Pediatrics | Year: 2012
Fragile X syndrome, diagnosed by Fragile X Mental Retardation 1 (FMR1) DNA testing, is the most common single-gene cause of inherited intellectual disability. The expanded CGG mutation in the FMR1 gene, once thought to have clinical significance limited to fragile X syndrome, is now well established as the cause for other fragile X-associated disorders including fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency and fragile X-associated tremor ataxia syndrome in individuals with the premutation (carriers). The importance of early diagnostic and management issues, in conjunction with the identification of family members at risk for or affected by FMR1 mutations, has led to intense discussion about the appropriate timing for early identification of FMR1 mutations. This review includes an overview of the fragile X-associated disorders and screening efforts to date, and discussion of the advantages and barriers to FMR1 screening in newborns, during childhood, and in women of reproductive age. Comparison with screening programs for other common genetic conditions is discussed to arrive at action steps to increase the identification of families affected by FMR1 mutations. Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Nolin S.L.,New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities |
Sah S.,Asuragen |
Glicksman A.,New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities |
Sherman S.L.,Emory University |
And 12 more authors.
American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A | Year: 2013
We investigated the effect of AGG interruptions on fragile X repeat instability upon transmission of fragile X intermediate and small premutation alleles with 45-69 CGG repeats. The FMR1 repeat structure was determined for 375 mothers, 48 fathers, and 538 offspring (457 maternal and 81 paternal transmissions) using a novel PCR assay to determine repeat length and AGG interruptions. The number of AGG interruptions and the length of uninterrupted CGG repeats at the 3′ end were correlated with repeat instability on transmission. Maternal alleles with no AGGs conferred the greatest risk for unstable transmissions. All nine full mutation expansions were inherited from maternal alleles with no AGGs. Furthermore, the magnitude of repeat expansion was larger for alleles lacking AGG interruptions. Transmissions from paternal alleles with no AGGs also exhibited greater instability than those with one or more AGGs. Our results demonstrate that characterization of the AGG structure within the FMR1 repeat allows more accurate risk estimates of repeat instability and expansion to full mutations for intermediate and small premutation alleles. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Langfelder-Schwind E.,Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center |
Karczeski B.,Johns Hopkins University |
Strecker M.N.,CombiMatrix |
Redman J.,Quest Diagnostics |
And 7 more authors.
Journal of Genetic Counseling | Year: 2014
Purpose: To provide practice recommendations for genetic counselors whose clients are considering cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier testing or seeking information regarding CF molecular test results. The goals of these recommendations are to: 1) Provide updated information about the natural history, diagnosis, and treatment of CF and related conditions. 2) Supplement genetic counselors' knowledge and understanding of the available carrier screening and diagnostic testing options. 3) Describe the current state of genotype/phenotype correlations for CFTR mutations and an approach to interpreting both novel and previously described variants. 4) Provide a framework for genetic counselors to assist clients' decision-making regarding CF carrier testing, prenatal diagnosis, and pregnancy management. Disclaimer The practice guidelines of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the NSGC to assist genetic counselors and other health care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns; including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue, and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the NSGC practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are only current as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and NSGC does not "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information. © 2013 National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.
Huang B.,Integrated Genetics |
Huang B.,University of California at Irvine |
Pearle P.,California Pacific Medical Center |
Rauen K.A.,University of California at San Francisco |
And 2 more authors.
American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A | Year: 2012
Supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMC) are relatively common in prenatal diagnosis. As the clinical outcomes vary greatly, a better understanding of the karyotype-phenotype correlation for different SMCs will be important for genetic counseling. We present two cases of prenatally detected de novo, small SMCs. The markers were present in 80% of amniocyte colonies in Case 1 and 38% of the colonies in Case 2. The SMCs were determined to be derived from chromosome 6 during postnatal confirmation studies. Although the sizes and the chromosomal origin of the SMCs in these two cases appeared to be similar, the clinical outcomes varied. The clinical manifestations observed in Case 1 included small for gestational age, feeding difficulty at birth, hydronephrosis, deviated septum and dysmorphic features, while the phenotype is apparently normal in Case 2. Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed and showed increase in dosage for approximately 26Mb of genetic material from the proximal short and long arms of chromosome 6 in Case 1. Results of array CGH were uninformative in Case 2, either due to mosaicism or lack of detectable euchromatin. The difference in the clinical presentation in these two patients may have resulted from the difference in the actual gene contents of the marker chromosomes and/or the differential distribution of the mosaicism. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Alamillo C.L.,Ambry Genetics |
Powis Z.,Ambry Genetics |
Farwell K.,Ambry Genetics |
Shahmirzadi L.,Ambry Genetics |
And 11 more authors.
Prenatal Diagnosis | Year: 2015
Objective: Exome sequencing is a successful option for diagnosing individuals with previously uncharacterized genetic conditions, however little has been reported regarding its utility in a prenatal setting. The goal of this study is to describe the results from a cohort of fetuses for which exome sequencing was performed. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the first seven cases referred to our laboratory for exome sequencing following fetal demise or termination of pregnancy. All seven pregnancies had multiple congenital anomalies identified by level II ultrasound. Exome sequencing was performed on trios using cultured amniocytes or products of conception from the affected fetuses. Results: Relevant alterations were identified in more than half of the cases (4/7). Three of the four were categorized as 'positive' results, and one of the four was categorized as a 'likely positive' result. The provided diagnoses included osteogenesis imperfecta II (COL1A2), glycogen storage disease IV (GBE1), oral-facial-digital syndrome 1 (OFD1), and RAPSN-associated fetal akinesia deformation sequence. Conclusion: This data suggests that exome sequencing is likely to be a valuable diagnostic testing option for pregnancies with multiple congenital anomalies detected by prenatal ultrasound; however, additional studies with larger cohorts of affected pregnancies are necessary to confirm these findings. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wapner R.J.,Columbia University |
Martin C.L.,Emory University |
Levy B.,Columbia University |
Ballif B.C.,Signature |
And 20 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2012
BACKGROUND:Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis. METHODS:Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray. RESULTS:We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down's syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.) Copyright © 2012 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Devers P.L.,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Devers P.L.,Verinata Health |
Cronister A.,Integrated Genetics |
Ormond K.E.,Stanford University |
And 2 more authors.
Journal of Genetic Counseling | Year: 2013
The 1997 discovery of free fetal DNA in maternal plasma launched clinical researchers' efforts to establish a reliable method for non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal genetic conditions. Various methods, including, but not limited to, massively parallel sequencing (MPS) and selective analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma, have recently been developed as highly sensitive and specific noninvasive screening tools for common fetal chromosome aneuploidies. Incorporating these new noninvasive technologies into clinical practice will impact the current prenatal screening paradigm for fetal aneuploidy, in which genetic counseling plays an integral role. The National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) currently supports Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/Noninvasive Prenatal Diagnosis (NIPT/NIPD) as an option for patients whose pregnancies are considered to be at an increased risk for certain chromosome abnormalities. NSGC urges that NIPT/NIPD only be offered in the context of informed consent, education, and counseling by a qualified provider, such as a certified genetic counselor. Patients whose NIPT/NIPD results are abnormal, or who have other factors suggestive of a chromosome abnormality, should receive genetic counseling and be given the option of standard confirmatory diagnostic testing. © 2013 National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.
Finucane B.,Genetic Services at Elwyn |
Abrams L.,National Fragile X Foundation |
Cronister A.,Integrated Genetics |
Archibald A.D.,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services |
And 2 more authors.
Journal of Genetic Counseling | Year: 2012
Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is one of several clinical disorders associated with mutations in the X-linked Fragile X Mental Retardation-1 (FMR1) gene. With evolving knowledge about the phenotypic consequences of FMR1 transcription and translation, sharp clinical distinctions between pre-and full mutations have become more fluid. The complexity of the issues surrounding genetic testing and management of FMR1-associated disorders has increased; and several aspects of genetic counseling for FMR1 mutations remain challenging, including risk assessment for intermediate alleles and the widely variable clinical prognosis for females with full mutations. FMR1 mutation testing is increasingly being offered to women without known risk factors, and newborn screening for FXS is underway in research-based pilot studies. Each diagnosis of an FMR1 mutation has farreaching clinical and reproductive implications for the extended family. The interest in large-scale population screening is likely to increase due to patient demand and awareness, and as targeted pharmaceutical treatments for FXS become available over the next decade. Given these developments and the likelihood of more widespread screening, genetic counselors across a variety of healthcare settings will increasingly be called upon to address complex diagnostic, psychosocial, and management issues related to FMR1 gene mutations. The following guidelines are intended to assist genetic counselors in providing accurate risk assessment and appropriate educational and supportive counseling for individuals with positive test results and families affected by FMR1-associated disorders. © 2012 National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc.
Johnson J.P.,Shodair Childrens Hospital |
Haag M.,Integrated Genetics |
Beischel L.,Montana Newborn Screening Program |
Mccann C.,St Joseph Hospital and Medical Center |
And 5 more authors.
Clinical Genetics | Year: 2014
We describe a family with recurrent 11q23-qter deletion Jacobsen syndrome in two affected brothers, with unique mosaic deletion 'rescue' through development of uniparental disomy (UPD) in the mother and one of the brothers. Inheritance studies show that the deleted chromosome is of maternal origin in both boys, and microarray shows a break near the ASAM gene. Parental lymphocyte chromosomes were normal. However, the mother is homozygous in lymphocytes for all loci within the deleted region in her sons, and presumably has UPD for this region. In addition, she is mosaic for the 11q deletion seen in her sons at a level of 20-30% in skin fibroblasts. We hypothesize that one of her #11 chromosomes shows fragility, that breakage at 11q23 occurred with telomeric loss in some cells, but 'rescue' from the deletion occurred in most cells by the development of mitotic UPD. She apparently carries the 11q deletion in her germ line resulting in recurrence of the syndrome. The older son is mosaic for the 11q cell line (70-88%, remainder 46,XY), and segmental UPD11 'rescue' apparently also occurred in his cytogenetically normal cells. This is a novel phenomenon restoring disomy to an individual with a chromosomal deletion. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PubMed | Integrated Genetics
Type: Case Reports | Journal: American journal of medical genetics. Part A | Year: 2012
Supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMC) are relatively common in prenatal diagnosis. As the clinical outcomes vary greatly, a better understanding of the karyotype-phenotype correlation for different SMCs will be important for genetic counseling. We present two cases of prenatally detected de novo, small SMCs. The markers were present in 80% of amniocyte colonies in Case 1 and 38% of the colonies in Case 2. The SMCs were determined to be derived from chromosome 6 during postnatal confirmation studies. Although the sizes and the chromosomal origin of the SMCs in these two cases appeared to be similar, the clinical outcomes varied. The clinical manifestations observed in Case 1 included small for gestational age, feeding difficulty at birth, hydronephrosis, deviated septum and dysmorphic features, while the phenotype is apparently normal in Case 2. Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed and showed increase in dosage for approximately 26 Mb of genetic material from the proximal short and long arms of chromosome 6 in Case 1. Results of array CGH were uninformative in Case 2, either due to mosaicism or lack of detectable euchromatin. The difference in the clinical presentation in these two patients may have resulted from the difference in the actual gene contents of the marker chromosomes and/or the differential distribution of the mosaicism.