Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results: a clinical laboratory practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Disclaimer: ACMG Clinical Laboratory Practice Resources are developed primarily as an educational tool for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these practice resources is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical laboratory geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient's record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been rapidly adopted into prenatal care. Since NIPS is a screening test, diagnostic testing is recommended to confirm all cases of screen-positive NIPS results. For cytogenetics laboratories performing confirmatory testing on prenatal diagnostic samples, a standardized testing algorithm is needed to ensure that the appropriate testing takes place. This algorithm includes diagnostic testing by either chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis samples and encompasses chromosome analysis, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and chromosomal microarray.

A 137-kb deletion within the Potocki-Shaffer syndrome interval on chromosome 11p11.2 associated with developmental delay and hypotonia.

Potocki-Shaffer syndrome (PSS) is a rare disorder caused by haploinsufficiency of genes located on the proximal short arm of chromosome 11 (11p11.2p12). Classic features include biparietal foramina, multiple exostoses, profound hypotonia, dysmorphic features, and developmental delay/intellectual disability. Fewer than 40 individuals with PSS have been reported, with variable clinical presentations due in part to disparity in deletion sizes. We report on a boy who presented for initial evaluation at age 13 months because of a history of developmental delay, hypotonia, subtle dysmorphic features, and neurobehavioral abnormalities. SNP microarray analysis identified a 137 kb deletion at 11p11.2, which maps within the classically defined PSS interval. This deletion results in haploinsufficiency for all or portions of six OMIM genes: SLC35C1, CRY2, MAPK8IP1, PEX16, GYLTL1B, and PHF21A. Recently, translocations interrupting PHF21A have been associated with intellectual disability and craniofacial anomalies similar to those seen in PSS. The identification of this small deletion in a child with developmental delay and hypotonia provides further evidence for the genetic basis of developmental disability and identifies a critical region sufficient to cause hypotonia in this syndrome. Additionally, this case illustrates the utility of high resolution genomic approaches in correlating clinical phenotypes with specific genes in contiguous gene deletion syndromes.

Formation of novel CENP-A domains on tandem repetitive DNA and across chromosome breakpoints on human chromosome 8q21 neocentromeres.

Endogenous human centromeres form on megabase-sized arrays of tandemly repeated alpha satellite DNA. Human neocentromeres form epigenetically at ectopic sites devoid of alpha satellite DNA and permit analysis of centromeric DNA and chromatin organization. In this study, we present molecular cytogenetic and CENP-A chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) on CHIP analyses of two neocentromeres that have formed in chromosome band 8q21 each with a unique DNA and CENP-A chromatin configuration. The first neocentromere was found on a neodicentric chromosome 8 with an inactivated endogenous centromere, where the centromeric activity and CENP-A domain were repositioned to band 8q21 on a large tandemly repeated DNA. This is the first example of a neocentromere forming on repetitive DNA, as all other mapped neocentromeres have formed on single copy DNA. Quantitative fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis showed a 60% reduction in the alpha satellite array size at the inactive centromere compared to the active centromere on the normal chromosome 8. This neodicentric chromosome may provide insight into centromere inactivation and the role of tandem DNA in centromere structure. The second neocentromere was found on a neocentric ring chromosome that contained the 8q21 tandemly repeated DNA, although the neocentromere was localized to a different genomic region. Interestingly, this neocentromere is composed of two distinct CENP-A domains in bands 8q21 and 8q24, which are brought into closer proximity on the ring chromosome. This neocentromere suggests that chromosomal rearrangement and DNA breakage may be involved in neocentromere formation. These novel examples provide insight into the formation and structure of human neocentromeres.

Section E9 of the American College of Medical Genetics technical standards and guidelines: fluorescence in situ hybridization.

This updated Section E9 has been incorporated into and supersedes the previous Section E9 in Section E: Clinical Cytogenetics of the 2008 Edition (Revised 02/2007) American College of Medical Genetics Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories. This section deals specifically with the standards and guidelines applicable to fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis.

College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of administering a newly established proficiency test offered through the College of American Pathologists and the American College of Medical Genetics for genomic copy number assessment by microarray analysis, and to determine the reproducibility and concordance among laboratory results from this test. METHODS: Surveys were designed through the Cytogenetic Resource Committee of the two colleges to assess the ability of testing laboratories to process DNA samples provided and interpret results. Supplemental questions were asked with each Survey to determine laboratory practice trends. RESULTS: Twelve DNA specimens, representing 2 pilot and 10 Survey challenges, were distributed to as many as 74 different laboratories, yielding 493 individual responses. The mean consensus for matching result interpretations was 95.7%. Responses to supplemental questions indicate that the number of laboratories offering this testing is increasing, methods for analysis and evaluation are becoming standardized, and array platforms used are increasing in probe density. CONCLUSION: The College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing program for copy number assessment by cytogenomic microarray is a successful and efficient mechanism for assessing interlaboratory reproducibility. This will provide laboratories the opportunity to evaluate their performance and assure overall accuracy of patient results. The high level of concordance in laboratory responses across all testing platforms by multiple facilities highlights the robustness of this technology.

Microdeletion/microduplication of proximal 15q11.2 between BP1 and BP2: a susceptibility region for neurological dysfunction including developmental and language delay.

The proximal long arm of chromosome 15 has segmental duplications located at breakpoints BP1-BP5 that mediate the generation of NAHR-related microdeletions and microduplications. The classical Prader-Willi/Angelman syndrome deletion is flanked by either of the proximal BP1 or BP2 breakpoints and the distal BP3 breakpoint. The larger Type I deletions are flanked by BP1 and BP3 in both Prader-Willi and Angelman syndrome subjects. Those with this deletion are reported to have a more severe phenotype than individuals with either Type II deletions (BP2-BP3) or uniparental disomy 15. The BP1-BP2 region spans approximately 500 kb and contains four evolutionarily conserved genes that are not imprinted. Reports of mutations or disturbed expression of these genes appear to impact behavioral and neurological function in affected individuals. Recently, reports of deletions and duplications flanked by BP1 and BP2 suggest an association with speech and motor delays, behavioral problems, seizures, and autism. We present a large cohort of subjects with copy number alteration of BP1 to BP2 with common phenotypic features. These include autism, developmental delay, motor and language delays, and behavioral problems, which were present in both cytogenetic groups. Parental studies demonstrated phenotypically normal carriers in several instances, and mildly affected carriers in others, complicating phenotypic association and/or causality. Possible explanations for these results include reduced penetrance, altered gene dosage on a particular genetic background, or a susceptibility region as reported for other areas of the genome implicated in autism and behavior disturbances.

Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies.

Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%-20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype ( approximately 3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.

Variability in interpreting and reporting copy number changes detected by array-based technology in clinical laboratories.

PURPOSE: : The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in interpretation and reporting of copy number changes that are detected by array-based technology in the clinical laboratory. METHODS: : Thirteen different copy number changes, detected by array comparative genomic hybridization, that have not been associated with an abnormal phenotype in the literature were evaluated by directors from 11 different clinical laboratories to determine how they would interpret and report the findings. RESULTS: : For none of the thirteen copy number changes was there complete agreement in the interpretation of the clinical significance of the deletion or duplication. For some cases, the interpretations ranged from normal to abnormal. CONCLUSION: : There is a need for more specific guidelines for interpreting and reporting copy number changes detected by array-based technology to clearly and more consistently communicate the clinical significance of these findings to ordering providers.

Ovotesticular disorder of sexual development (true hermaphroditism).

OBJECTIVES: To determine the mechanism for the 46,XX/46,XY karyotype observed in a patient with an ovotesticular disorder of sexual development (ie, true hermaphroditism). METHODS: Cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and molecular DNA analyses were performed on the blood, skin, and left and right gonadal tissue from 2 surgical procedures. The results of these studies were used to determine whether the ovotesticular disorder of sexual development resulted from mosaicism or tetragametic chimerism. RESULTS: Cytogenetic and molecular analyses revealed a mixture of 46,XX and 46,XY cells in most tissues. DNA analysis from the gonadal tissues from surgeries 1 and 2 was performed. Highly polymorphic loci from 12 different chromosomes were examined for the presence of > or = 1 paternal or maternal alleles. Three loci were highly informative: D14S544 (14q32.2), DS14S583 (14q21.3), and SE33 (6q14). Each demonstrated the presence of 2 paternal and 2 maternal alleles, indicating that the ovotesticular disorder of sexual development resulted from tetragametic chimerism. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and DNA analyses of the polymorphic markers from several different loci, it was confirmed that the patient had tetragametic chimerism. This case has assisted in increasing our knowledge of the possible mechanisms causing this rare and complex disorder.

Burkitt lymphoma arising in organ transplant recipients: a clinicopathologic study of five cases.

We report five cases of Burkitt lymphoma arising in organ transplant recipients. There were four men and one woman with a mean age of 35 years. All were solid organ recipients with three renal, one liver, and one double lung transplantation. The time interval between organ transplantation and lymphoma averaged 4.5 years. Patients typically presented with high-stage disease with generalized lymphadenopathy and bone marrow involvement. Histology showed classic Burkitt lymphoma or atypical variant/Burkitt-like morphology. C-MYC rearrangement, including three cases with immunoglobulin heavy chain and two cases with lambda light chain, and Epstein-Barr virus were detected in all the cases. Additional chromosomal abnormalities were present in two of three cases and p53 mutation was found in one of three cases. Aberrant genotype and phenotype were frequently encountered, including minor monoclonal or oligoclonal T-cell populations and undetectable surface immunoglobulin light chain expression. Four patients received antilymphoma regimens, with combination chemotherapy (three patients) and/or Rituximab (three patients), in addition to reduction of immunosuppression. All four patients achieved complete remission. We conclude that posttransplant Burkitt lymphoma represents a characteristic clinicopathologic entity and occurs later after transplantation. Genotypic and phenotypic aberrations are often present. Rituximab may be an effective alternative to conventional combination chemotherapy in the treatment of a posttransplant Burkitt lymphoma.