Karyotype
prescription is based on clinical signs (or reasons for karyotype prescription)
which are phenotypic manifestations associated with chromosomal abnormalities.
The aim of this study was to establish a correspondence between karyotype indications and their results in patients. This was a
retrospective study that was carried out in the
Histology-Embryology-Cytogenetics laboratory of the University Hospital of
Cocody-Abidjan from 2014 to 2019. 58 patient files were identified and included
the indication or reason for prescribing a constitutional karyotype and the
biological result obtained. An individual data sheet was used to collect the
data. 17 reasons for prescription were identified and divided into 2 groups.
Sexual ambiguity was the most frequent reason (29.3%). The first group (G1)
represented the 10 reasons for which the karyotype results were normal. The
second group (G2) corresponded of the 7 motives with normal or abnormal
karyotype results. Several anomalies were listed according to these reasons:
inversions, mosaics (anomalies of number and structure) and trisomy 21. The
last was the most frequent chromosomal anomaly (69.24%). It was found in
several reasons for karyotype prescription: malformations, neurological
disorders, suspected trisomy and cardiac
pathology. Several factors could explain these results, among which are
the limits of the karyotype and the non-genetic causes that can induce these abnormal phenotypes. Complementary
examinations to the karyotype are molecular cytogenetic techniques,
notably fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array comparative genomic
hybridization (Array-CGH).
References
[1]
Dimassi, S.M. and Sanlaville, T.D. (2017) Chromosomal Abnormalities. Journal of Pediatrics Childcare, 30, 49-70.
[2]
Wellesley, D., et al. (2012) Rare Chromosome Abnormalities, Prevalence and Prenatal Diagnosis Rates from Population-Based Congenital Anomaly Registers in Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20, 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.246
[3]
Ataman, A.D., Vatanoglu-Lutz, E.E. and Gazi, Y.G. (2012) Medicine in Stamps: History of Down syndrome through Philately. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 13, 267-269. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2012.43
[4]
Kruszka, P., et al. (2017) 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome in Diverse Populations. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 173, 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38199
[5]
Vincent, M.C., et al. (2002) Cytogenetic Investigations of Infertile Men with Low Sperm Counts: A 25 Year Experience. Journal of Andrology, 23, 18-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02597.x
[6]
Liu, S., Song, L., Cram, D.S., Xiong, L., Wang, K., Wu, R., Liu, J., Deng, K., Jia, B., Zhong, M. and Yang, F. (2015) Traditional Karyotyping vs Copy Number Variation Sequencing for Detection of Chromosomal Abnormalities Associated with Spontaneous Miscarriage. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 46, 72-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14849
[7]
Hao, M.Z., Li, L., Zhang, H., Li, L., Liu, R. and Yu, Y. (2020) The Difference between Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray for Mosaicism of Aneuploid Chromosomes in Prenatal Diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 34, e23514. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23514
[8]
Han, B., et al. (2020) Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors Associated with the Phenotype of Exceptional Longevity and Normal Cognition. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 19140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75446-2
[9]
Loane, M., Dolk, H. and Morris, J.K. (2009) Maternal Age-Specific of Non-Chromosomal Anomalies. BJOG, 116, 1111-1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02227.x
[10]
Johnson, J.A. and Tough, S. (2016) Postponing Pregnancy. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer, 38, 1-17.
[11]
Peng, J., et al. (2019) The Non-Genetic Paternal Factors for Congenital Heart Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Cardiology, 2, 684-691. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23194
[12]
Lee, K.S., et al. (2021) Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors of Congenital Anomalies: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36, e183.
[13]
Harel, T. and Lupski, J.R. (2018) Genomic Disorders 20 Years on—Mechanisms for Clinical Manifestations. Clinical Genetics, 93, 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13146
[14]
Antonaros, F., et al. (2021) The Transcriptome Profile of Human Trisomy 21 Blood Cells. Human Genomics, 15, Article No. 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-021-00325-4
[15]
Chen, X.Q., et al. (2021) Mechanistic Analysis of Age-Related Clinical Manifestations in Down syndrome. Frontiers Aging in Neurosciences, 13, Article 700280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.700280
[16]
Rachidi, M. and Lopes, C. (2007) Mental Retardation in Down syndrome: From Gene Dosage Imbalance to Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms. Neuroscience Research. 59, 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2007.08.007
[17]
Prandini, P., et al. (2007) Natural Gene-Expression Variation in Down syndrome Modulates the Outcome of Gene-Dosage Imbalance. American Journal of Human Genetics, 81, 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1086/519248
[18]
Pelleri, M.C., et al. (2018) Integrated Quantitative Maps of the Transcriptome of Human Trisomy 21 Tissues and Cells. Frontier Genetics, 9, Article 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00125
[19]
Rosenfeld, J.A. and Patel, A. (2017) Chromosomal Microarrays: Understanding Genetics of Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Congenital Anomalies. The Journal of Pediatric Genetics, 6, 42-50.
[20]
Emanuel, P.O., et al. (2018) Evidence Behindthe Use of Molecular Tests in Melanocytic Lesions and Practice Patterns of These Tests by Dermatopathologists. Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 45, 839-884. https://doi.org/10.1111/cup.13327
