Detection of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous miscarriage by low‑coverage next‑generation sequencing

Li,Fen‑Xia; Xie,Mei‑Juan; Qu,Shou‑Fang; He,Dan; Wu,Long; Liang,Zhi‑Kun; Wu,Ying‑Song; Yang,Fang; Yang,Xue‑Xi

doi:10.3892/mmr.2020.11208

Detection of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous miscarriage by low‑coverage next‑generation sequencing

Authors:
- Fen‑Xia Li
- Mei‑Juan Xie
- Shou‑Fang Qu
- Dan He
- Long Wu
- Zhi‑Kun Liang
- Ying‑Song Wu
- Fang Yang
- Xue‑Xi Yang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China, Institute of Antibody Engineering, School of Laboratory Medicine and Biotechnology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing 100050, P.R. China, Guangzhou Darui Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Guangzhou, Guangdong 510665, P.R. China
Published online on: June 3, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2020.11208
Pages: 1269-1276
Copyright: © Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Chromosomal abnormalities (CAs) can cause spontaneous miscarriage and increase the incidence of subsequent pregnancy loss and other complications. Presently, CAs are detected mainly by array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays. The present study developed a low‑coverage next‑generation sequencing method to detect CAs in spontaneous miscarriage and assess its clinical performance. In total, 1,401 patients who had experienced an abortion were enrolled in the present study and divided into two groups. In group I, 437 samples that had been previously validated by array CGH were used to establish a method to detect CAs using a semiconductor sequencing platform. In group II, 964 samples, which were not verified, were assessed using established methods with respect to clinical significance. Copy number variant (CNV)‑positive and euploidy samples were verified by array CGH and short tandem repeat profiling, respectively, based on quantitative fluorescent PCR. The low‑coverage sequencing method detected CNVs >1 Mb in length and a total of 3.5 million unique reads. Similar results to array CGH were obtained in group I, except for six CNVs <1 Mb long. In group II, there were 341 aneuploidies, 195 CNVs, 25 mosaicisms and 403 euploidies. Overall, among the 1,401 abortion samples, there were 536 aneuploidies, 263 CNVs, 34 mosaicisms, and 568 euploidies. Trisomies were present in all autosomal chromosomes. The most common aneuploidies were T16, monosomy X, T22, T15, T21 and T13. Furthermore, one tetrasomy 21, one CNV associated with Wolf‑Hirschhorn syndrome, one associated with DiGeorge syndrome and one associated with both Prader‑Willi and Angelman syndromes were identified. These four cases were confirmed by short tandem repeat profiling and array CGH. Quantitative fluorescent PCR revealed nine polyploidy samples. The present method demonstrated equivalent efficacy to that of array CGH in detecting CNVs >1 Mb, with advantages of requiring less input DNA and lower cost.

View Figures

View References

1	Liu S, Song L, Cram DS, Xiong L, Wang K, Wu R, Liu J, Deng K, Jia B, Zhong M, et al: Traditional karyotyping vs copy number variation sequencing for detection of chromosomal abnormalities associated with spontaneous miscarriage. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 46:472–477. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	van den Berg MM, van Maarle MC, van Wely M and Goddijn M: Genetics of early miscarriage. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1822:1951–1959. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Daniely M, Aviram-Goldring A, Barkai G and Goldman B: Detection of chromosomal aberration in fetuses arising from recurrent spontaneous abortion by comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod. 13:805–809. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Kim JW, Lee WS, Yoon TK, Seok HH, Cho JH, Kim YS, Lyu SW and Shim SH: Chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneous abortion after assisted reproductive treatment. BMC Med Genet. 11:1532010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Lomax B, Tang S, Separovic E, Phillips D, Hillard E, Thomson T and Kalousek DK: Comparative genomic hybridization in combination with flow cytometry improves results of cytogenetic analysis of spontaneous abortions. Am J Hum Genet. 66:1516–1521. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Lathi RB, Gustin SL, Keller J, Maisenbacher MK, Sigurjonsson S, Tao R and Demko Z: Reliability of 46,XX results on miscarriage specimens: A review of 1,222 first-trimester miscarriage specimens. Fertil Steril. 101:178–182. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH and Lese Martin C: Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet. 74:1168–1174. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Kimberly L, Case A, Cheung AP, Sierra S, AlAsiri S, Carranza-Mamane B, Case A, Dwyer C, Graham J, Havelock J, et al: Advanced reproductive age and fertility: No. 269, November 2011. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 117:95–102. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Shen J, Wu W, Gao C, Ochin H, Qu D, Xie J, Gao L, Zhou Y, Cui Y and Liu J: Chromosomal copy number analysis on chorionic villus samples from early spontaneous miscarriages by high throughput genetic technology. Mol Cytogenet. 9:72016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Bagheri H, Mercier E, Qiao Y, Stephenson MD and Rajcan-Separovic E: Genomic characteristics of miscarriage copy number variants. Mol Hum Reprod. 21:655–661. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Foyouzi N, Cedars MI and Huddleston HG: Cost-effectiveness of cytogenetic evaluation of products of conception in the patient with a second pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 98:151–155. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Liang D, Peng Y, Lv W, Deng L, Zhang Y, Li H, Yang P, Zhang J, Song Z, Xu G, et al: Copy number variation sequencing for comprehensive diagnosis of chromosome disease syndromes. J Mol Diagn. 16:519–526. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Kearney HM, South ST, Wolff DJ, Lamb A, Hamosh A and Rao KW; Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics, : American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities. Genet Med. 13:676–679. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Shaffer LG and Rosenfeld JA: Microarray-based prenatal diagnosis for the identification of fetal chromosome abnormalities. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 13:601–611. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Wang MZ, Lin FQ, Li M, He D, Yu QH, Yang XX and Wu YS: Semiconductor Sequencing Analysis of Chromosomal Copy Number Variations in Spontaneous Miscarriage. Med Sci Monit. 23:5550–5557. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Wen J, Hanna CW, Martell S, Leung PC, Lewis SM, Robinson WP, Stephenson MD and Rajcan-Separovic E: Functional consequences of copy number variants in miscarriage. Mol Cytogenet. 8:62015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Wang H, Dong Z, Zhang R, Chau MHK, Yang Z, Tsang KYC, Wong HK, Gui B, Meng Z, Xiao K, et al: Low-pass genome sequencing versus chromosomal microarray analysis: Implementation in prenatal diagnosis. Genet Med. 22:500–510. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Chiu RW, Chan KC, Gao Y, Lau VY, Zheng W, Leung TY, Foo CH, Xie B, Tsui NB, Lun FM, et al: Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:20458–20463. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Li X, Chen S, Xie W, Vogel I, Choy KW, Chen F, Christensen R, Zhang C, Ge H, Jiang H, et al: PSCC: Sensitive and reliable population-scale copy number variation detection method based on low coverage sequencing. PLoS One. 9:e850962014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Szatkiewicz JP, Wang W, Sullivan PF, Wang W and Sun W: Improving detection of copy-number variation by simultaneous bias correction and read-depth segmentation. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:1519–1532. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Menasha J, Levy B, Hirschhorn K and Kardon NB: Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: New insights from a 12-year study. Genet Med. 7:251–263. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Levy SE and Myers RM: Advancements in Next-Generation Sequencing. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 17:95–115. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Gu W, Miller S and Chiu CY: Clinical Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pathogen Detection. Annu Rev Pathol. 14:319–338. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, Madankumar R, Saffer C, Das AF, Craig JA, Chudova DI, Devers PL, Jones KW, et al CARE Study Group, : DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 370:799–808. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Zhang J, Li J, Saucier JB, Feng Y, Jiang Y, Sinson J, McCombs AK, Schmitt ES, Peacock S, Chen S, et al: Non-invasive prenatal sequencing for multiple Mendelian monogenic disorders using circulating cell-free fetal DNA. Nat Med. 25:439–447. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Chen M and Zhao H: Next-generation sequencing in liquid biopsy: Cancer screening and early detection. Hum Genomics. 13:342019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Dong Z, Zhang J, Hu P, Chen H, Xu J, Tian Q, Meng L, Ye Y, Wang J, Zhang M, et al: Low-pass whole-genome sequencing in clinical cytogenetics: A validated approach. Genet Med. 18:940–948. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Duan J, Zhang JG, Deng HW and Wang YP: Comparative studies of copy number variation detection methods for next-generation sequencing technologies. PLoS One. 8:e591282013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Luthra R, Chen H, Roy-Chowdhuri S and Singh RR: Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Molecular Diagnostics of Cancer: Advantages and Challenges. Cancers (Basel). 7:2023–2036. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Wang J, Chen L, Zhou C, Wang L, Xie H, Xiao Y, Zhu H, Hu T, Zhang Z, Zhu Q, et al: Prospective chromosome analysis of 3429 amniocentesis samples in China using copy number variation sequencing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 219:287.e1–287.e18. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar
31	South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, Higgins AW and Kearney HM; Working Group for the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee, : ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: Revision 2013. Genet Med. 15:901–909. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, Quintero-Rivera F and South ST; Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee, : American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med. 13:680–685. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	33. Brothman AR, Dolan MM, Goodman BK, Park JP, Persons DL, Saxe DF, Tepperberg JH, Tsuchiya KD, Van Dyke DL, Wilson KS, et al: College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics proficiency testing for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis. Genet Med. 13:765–769. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Du Y, Chen L, Lin J, Zhu J, Zhang N, Qiu X, Li D and Wang L: Chromosomal karyotype in chorionic villi of recurrent spontaneous abortion patients. Biosci Trends. 12:32–39. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Yuan SM, Liao C, Li DZ, Huang JZ, Hu SY, Ke M, Zhong HZ and Yi CX: Chorionic villus cell culture and karyotype analysis in 1,983 cases of spontaneous miscarriage. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 52:461–466. 2017.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
36	Benn P: Trisomy 16 and trisomy 16 Mosaicism: A review. Am J Med Genet. 79:121–133. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, Savage M, Platt LD, Saltzman D, Grobman WA, et al: Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 367:2175–2184. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Hanna JS, Shires P and Matile G: Trisomy 1 in a clinically recognized pregnancy. Am J Med Genet. 68:981997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Dunn TM, Grunfeld L and Kardon NB: Trisomy 1 in a clinically recognized IVF pregnancy. Am J Med Genet. 99:152–153. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Ohsaka A, Hisa T, Watanabe N, Kojima H and Nagasawa T: Tetrasomy 21 as a sole chromosome abnormality in acute myeloid leukemia. fluorescence in situ hybridization and spectral karyotyping analyses. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 134:60–64. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Slavotinek AM, Chen XN, Jackson A, Gaunt L, Campbell A, Clayton-Smith J and Korenberg JR: Partial tetrasomy 21 in a male infant. J Med Genet. 37:E302000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Alkan G, Emiroglu MK and Kartal A: DiGeorge Syndrome with Sacral Myelomeningocele and Epilepsy. J Pediatr Neurosci. 12:344–345. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	Siew JX and Yap F: Growth trajectory and pubertal tempo from birth till final height in a girl with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2018:18–0001. 2018.PubMed/NCBI
44	Warner ME, Martin DP, Warner MA, Gavrilova RH, Sprung J and Weingarten TN: Anesthetic Considerations for Angelman Syndrome: Case Series and Review of the Literature. Anesth Pain Med. 7:e578262017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Hyde KJ and Schust DJ: Genetic considerations in recurrent pregnancy loss. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 5:a0231192015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
46	Rull K, Nagirnaja L and Laan M: Genetics of recurrent miscarriage: Challenges, current knowledge, future directions. Front Genet. 3:342012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
47	Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S and Suzumori K: Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril. 73:300–304. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
48	Sullivan AE, Silver RM, LaCoursiere DY, Porter TF and Branch DW: Recurrent fetal aneuploidy and recurrent miscarriage. Obstet Gynecol. 104:784–788. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
49	Larsen EC, Christiansen OB, Kolte AM and Macklon N: New insights into mechanisms behind miscarriage. BMC Med. 11:1542013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
50	Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Katano K, Suzumori N, Kitaori T and Mizutani E: Abnormal embryonic karyotype is the most frequent cause of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 27:2297–2303. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI