Mycotoxin contamination in the Arab world: Highlighting the main knowledge gaps and the current legislation.

Since the discovery of aflatoxins in the 1960s, knowledge in the mycotoxin research field has increased dramatically. Hundreds of review articles have been published summarizing many different aspects, including mycotoxin contamination per country or region. However, mycotoxin contamination in the Arab world, which includes 22 countries in Africa and Asia, has not yet been specifically reviewed. To this end, the contamination of mycotoxins in the Arab world was reviewed not only to profile the pervasiveness of the problem in this region but also to identify the main knowledge gaps imperiling the safety of food and feed in the future. To the best of our knowledge, 306 (non-)indexed publications in English, Arabic, or French were published from 1977 to 2021, focusing on the natural occurrence of mycotoxins in matrices of 14 different categories. Characteristic factors (e.g., detected mycotoxins, concentrations, and detection methods) were extracted, processed, and visualized. The main results are summarized as follows: (i) research on mycotoxin contamination has increased over the years. However, the accumulated data on their occurrences are scarce to non-existent in some countries; (ii) the state-of-the-art technologies on mycotoxin detection are not broadly implemented neither are contemporary multi-mycotoxin detection strategies, thus showing a need for capacity-building initiatives; and (iii) mycotoxin profiles differ among food and feed categories, as well as between human biofluids. Furthermore, the present work highlights contemporary legislation in the Arab countries and provides future perspectives to mitigate mycotoxins, enhance food and feed safety, and protect the consumer public. Concluding, research initiatives to boost mycotoxin research among Arab countries are strongly recommended.

The genomic basis of sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss: a comprehensive in-depth analysis of 24,900 miscarriages.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the genetic cause of sporadic and recurrent pregnancy loss and does the frequency and nature of chromosomal abnormalities play a role? Types and frequency of all identifiable chromosomal abnormalities were determined to inform our understanding, medical management and recurrence risk for patients experiencing pregnancy loss. DESIGN: Genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism-based chromosomal microarray (SNP-CMA) were used to evaluate 24,900 products of conception samples from various forms of pregnancy losses. RESULTS: Sporadic miscarriage (64.7%) or recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) (22%) were the most common referrals. Clinically significant abnormalities were observed in 55.8% (13,910) of samples, variants of uncertain significance in 1.8%, and normal results in 42.4%. In addition to autosomal trisomies (in 36% of samples), polyploidy and large segmental imbalances were identified in 7.8% and 2.8% of samples, respectively. Analysis of sequential samples from 1103 patients who had experienced RPL provided important insight into possible predispositions to RPL. CONCLUSIONS: This expansive chromosomal microarray analyses of pregnancy loss samples illuminates our understanding of the full spectrum, relative frequencies and the role of genomic abnormalities in pregnancy loss. The empiric observations described here provide useful insight for clinicians and highlight the importance of high-resolution genomic testing for comprehensive evaluation and risk assessment of individuals experiencing pregnancy loss.

ACOG and SMFM guidelines for prenatal diagnosis: Is karyotyping really sufficient?

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommend chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for prenatal diagnosis in cases with 1 or more fetal structural abnormalities. For patients who elect prenatal diagnosis and have a structurally normal fetus, either microarray or karyotype is recommended. This study evaluates the frequency of clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities (CSCA) that would have been missed if all patients offered the choice between CMA and karyotyping chose karyotyping. METHODS: A total of 3223 prenatal samples undergoing CMA were evaluated. Cases were categorized into 2 groups: those that met ACOG guidelines for CMA versus those that met ACOG guidelines for either CMA or karyotype. RESULTS: Of the 3223 cases, 1475 (45.8%) met ACOG recommendations for CMA, and 1748 (54.2%) met recommendations for either CMA or karyotype. In patients who could have elected either CMA or karyotype, 2.5% had CSCA that would have been missed if the patient had elected to pursue karyotype. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that 2.5% of patients will have a CSCA that may be missed if the guidelines continue to suggest that CMA and karyotyping have equivalent diagnostic value for patients without a fetal structural abnormality.