Prenatal phenotypes and pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with 16p11.2 microdeletion/microduplication.

BACKGROUND: Chromosomal 16p11.2 deletions and duplications are genomic disorders which are characterized by neurobehavioral abnormalities, obesity, congenital abnormalities. However, the prenatal phenotypes associated with 16p11.2 copy number variations (CNVs) have not been well characterized. This study aimed to provide an elaborate summary of intrauterine phenotypic features for these genomic disorders. METHODS: Twenty prenatal amniotic fluid samples diagnosed with 16p11.2 microdeletions/microduplications were obtained from pregnant women who opted for invasive prenatal testing. Karyotypic analysis and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) were performed in parallel. The pregnancy outcomes and health conditions of all cases after birth were followed up. Meanwhile, we made a pooled analysis of the prenatal phenotypes in the published cases carrying 16p11.2 CNVs. RESULTS: 20 fetuses (20/20,884, 0.10%) with 16p11.2 CNVs were identified: five had 16p11.2 BP2-BP3 deletions, 10 had 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 deletions and five had 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 duplications. Abnormal ultrasound findings were recorded in ten fetuses with 16p11.2 deletions, with various degrees of intrauterine phenotypic features observed. No ultrasound abnormalities were observed in any of the 16p11.2 duplications cases during the pregnancy period. Eleven cases with 16p11.2 deletions terminated their pregnancies. For 16p11.2 duplications, four cases gave birth to healthy neonates except for one case that was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse prenatal phenotypes, ranging from normal to abnormal, were observed in cases with 16p11.2 CNVs. For 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 deletions, abnormalities of the vertebral column or ribs and thickened nuchal translucency were the most common structural and non-structural abnormalities, respectively. 16p11.2 BP2-BP3 deletions might be closely associated with fetal growth restriction and single umbilical artery. No characteristic ultrasound findings for 16p11.2 duplications have been observed to date. Given the variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance of 16p11.2 CNVs, long-term follow-up after birth should be conducted for these cases.

Nomogram for predicting the risk of preterm birth in women undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a nomogram for predicting the risk of preterm birth in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. METHODS: A retrospective study of 4266 live birth cycles collected from January 2016 to October 2021 at the Center for Reproductive Medicine, First Hospital of Jilin University was performed. The sample size was sufficient based on the minimal ten events per variable (EPV) rule. The primary outcome of this study was preterm birth. The cycles were divided into the preterm birth group (n = 827) and the full-term delivery group (n = 3439). A nomogram was established based on the multivariate logistic regression analysis results. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the prediction accuracy of the nomogram model. The calibration curve was used to measure the calibration of the nomogram. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that female obesity or overweight (OR = 1.366, 95% CI: 1.111-1.679; OR = 1.537, 95% CI: 1.030-2.292), antral follicle count (AFC) of more than 24 (OR = 1.378, 95% CI: 1.035-1.836), multiple pregnancies (OR = 6.748, 95% CI: 5.559-8.190), gestational hypertension (OR = 9.662, 95% CI: 6.632-14.078) and gestational diabetes (OR = 4.650, 95% CI: 2.289-9.445) were the independent risk factors for preterm birth in IVF patients. The area under curve (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the prediction model was 0.781(95%CI: 0.763-0.799). The calibration curve of the nomogram showed that the prediction model had a good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: We used five risk factors to conduct a nomogram to predict preterm birth rates for patients undergoing IVF cycles. This nomogram can provide a visual assessment of the risk of preterm birth for clinical consultation.

The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare karyotype and chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of aneuploid chromosome mosaicism in amniocentesis samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2091 amniocentesis samples from pregnant women were collected from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed using G-banding and CMA analysis used the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K SNP microarray. RESULT: Thirteen cases with aneuploid chromosome mosaicism were detected and compared between the karyotype and CMA methods. Seven of these cases were trisomic mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism calculated from CMA were higher than those detected from karyotype analysis; noting three cases of trisomy mosaicism were not detected by karyotype analysis. Four cases exhibited monomeric mosaicism, and the levels of mosaicism detected in three of these cases were higher in karyotype compared with CMA analysis; one case had equivalent levels of monomeric mosaicism from both karyotype and CMA analysis. Two other cases from karyotype analysis were a mix of monosomic and trisomic mosaicism, whereas the CMA result was restricted to monosomic mosaicism for these cases. CONCLUSION: Both karyotype and CMA analysis can be used to detect aneuploid chromosome mosaicism. However, the two methods produced different results. CMA and karyotype analysis have their own advantages in detecting aneuploid mosaicism, and the combination of these methods provides a more rigorous diagnosis.