Search

Purpose: To evaluate the assumptions on which the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Standards and Guidelines for detecting mosaicism in amniotic fluid cultures are based., Methods: Data from 653 cases of amniotic fluid mosaicism were collected from 26 laboratories. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to compare the observed number of mosaic cases with the expected number based on binomial distribution theory., Results: Comparison of observed data from the in situ colony cases with the expected distribution of cases detected based on the binomial distribution did not reveal a significant difference (P = 0.525)., Conclusions: The empirical data fit the binomial distribution. Therefore, binomial theory can be used as an initial discussion point for determining whether ACMG Standards and Guidelines are adequate for detecting mosaicism.

We describe a liveborn infant with uniparental disomy (UPD) with trisomy 15 mosaicism. Third trimester amniocentesis yielded a 46,XX/47,XX,+15 karyotype. Symmetrical growth retardation, distinct craniofacies, congenital heart disease, severe hypotonia and minor skeletal anomalies were noted. The infant died at 6 weeks of life. Peripheral lymphocyte chromosomes were "normal" 46,XX in 100 cells. Parental lymphocyte chromosomes were normal. Skin biopsy showed 47,XX,+15 in 80% of fibroblasts and results were equivalent in fibroblasts from autopsy lung tissue. Molecular analysis revealed maternal uniparental heterodisomy for chromosome 15 in the 46,XX cell line. We describe an emerging phenotype of trisomy 15 mosaicism, confirm that more than one tissue should be studied in all cases of suspected mosaicism, and suggest that UPD be considered in all such cases.

We report the first case of a 46,XY/47,XYY mosaic male with fragile X [Fra(X)] expression in both cell lines. Cytogenetic analysis, DNA linkage analysis, and direct detection of the pre- and full mutation for the affected individual and his at-risk female relatives were performed. Southern analysis of PstI-digested DNA with probe pX6 clearly distinguished the normal genotype, the premutation, and the full mutation in various individuals in the patient's family. Fra(X) carriers who had normal cytogenetic results were clearly identified by direct mutation analysis.

We report three cases of amniocentesis in which mosaicism for trisomy 12 was detected in two or more independent cultures. The parents elected to terminate the pregnancy in all three cases. Follow-up studies in two of the cases confirmed the mosaicism in fetal tissues (in subcutaneous tissue in one case; in fetal lung in the other), but not in blood. No fetal anomalies were evident by ultrasound or at autopsy. These results along with other reported cases demonstrate the difficulty in counselling for mosaic trisomy 12.

We report on an adult woman with profound mental retardation and multiple anomalies who consists of 3 cell lines: one with trisomy 18, one with trisomy 13, and a normal cell line. Her phenotype includes manifestations of both trisomy syndromes. The origin of these cell lines could have been a doubly aneuploid (48,XX + 13, + 18) or singly aneuploid (47,XX + 18 or 47,XX + 13) zygote with subsequent mitotic nondisjunctions, or a normal zygote with multiple mitotic nondisjunctions. There have been four previous reports of mosaicism involving both trisomy D and trisomy E; all died in the first six months of life. Two of these cases had a doubly aneuploid (48,XX, + D + E) cell line. Our patient illustrates the need for study of several tissues in patients with complex aneuploidy syndromes or atypical manifestations of a given syndrome (such as prolonged survival), as well as the need for caution in counseling families about prognosis for survival in autosomal trisomies which usually are lethal.

A 5-year-old male with mild mental retardation showed a chromosomal rearrangement involving duplication of part of 2q (2q33.3 leads to 2wter) in 70% of metaphases from peripheral blood; the remaining 30% of cells had a rearrangement of chromosome 2 in the form of a ring, viz., r(2)(2p25.2 leads to 2q33.2). Both configurations appeared to be missing a tiny portion of 2p (p25.3 leads to pter). All metaphases examined from cultured skin fibroblasts from the child had the abnormal rod configuration of chromosome 2; none had the ring. The pattern of the 2q duplication/2p deletion in the rod is that expected if there were an inversion in a No. 2 in one of the parents. Q-, G-, and R-banding studies, however, revealed both parents to be chromosomally normal. Furthermore, the finding of an inversion would not explain the origin of the ring. The most probable explanation is that neither parent is mosaic for an inversion, but that the rod and ring configurations arose simultaneously from a de novo, prezygotic or early zygotic exchange in a No. 2, either between complementary DNA strands in G1 or by intrachromosomal exchange in S or G2. Differential selection against cells with the ring chromosome in blood and skin probably occurred during subsequent embryological development. Cytoplasmic malate dehydrogenase (MDH1) was excluded from the terminal band of 2p (i.e., 2p25.3) by deletion mapping.