Meral YİRMİBEŞ KARAOĞUZ, Halis ÖZDEMİR, Merih BAYRAM, Deniz KARÇAALTINCABA, Gülsüm KAYHAN, Mustafa Necmi İLHAN, Pınar ÇALIŞ, Erkan YURTCU, Mehmet Ali ERGÜN, Hasan Hüseyin KAZAN, Sezen GÜNTEKİN ERGÜN, Ferda PERÇİN, Gamze BİLGİLİ, Tuğrul KAYMAK

Is cervical swab an efficient method for developing a new noninvasive prenatal diagnostic test for numerical and structural chromosome anomalies?

Background/aim: Prenatal diagnosis is vital to obtain healthy generation for risky pregnancies. There have been several approaches, some of which are routinely applied in clinics to evaluate the possible prenatal deficiencies and/or diseases. In the present study, we aimed to isolate the fetal cells from endocervical samples and try to identify possible anomalies which were proved by Amniocentesis (AS) and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) methods. Materials and methods: Endoservical specimens were collected from 100 pregnant women. Cells were separated in parallel by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) G233 and placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP) antibodies. CMA (comprehensive meta-analysis) were carried out and male fetuses were confirmed with Sex determining region Y (SRY) amplification. Results: The percent of HLA G233 and placental and placental alkaline phosphatase (PLAP) positive cells were 4.55% and 84.59%, respectively. The percent of cells positive for both markers was 14.75%. CMA analyses were not informative. (SRY) was amplified in 67% of the samples. Conclusion: However, the success rate of the both cell sorting and scanning of DNA anomalies by aCGH and/or RT-PCR was limited, preventing the applicability of this proposal in the clinics. Still, the success of the proposed method depends on the development of the novel fetal cell-specific antibodies and the improvements in the sorting systems. Key words: Cervical swab, CMA (comprehensive meta-analysis), fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS)

PDF

___

1. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2015; 45 (1):16-26. doi: 10.1002/uog.14636
2. Wilson RD, Gagnon A, Audibert F, Campagnolo C, Carroll J. Prenatal diagnosis procedures and techniques to obtain a diagnostic fetal specimen or tissue: maternal and fetal risks and benefits. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2015; 37 (7): 656-668. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30205-X
3. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K et al. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genetics in Medicine 2013; 15 (5): 395-398. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.29
4. Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, Monaghan KG, Bajaj K et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 2016; 18 (10): 1056-1065. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.97
5. Li R, Wan J, Zhang Y, Fu F, Ou Y et al. Detection of fetal copy number variants by non-invasive prenatal testing for common aneuploidies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2016; 47 (1): 53-57. doi: 10.1002/uog.14911
6. Beulen L, Faas BHW, Feenstra I, van Vugt JMG, Bekker MN. Clinical utility of non-invasive prenatal testing in pregnancies with ultrasound anomalies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2017; 49 (6): 721-728. doi: 10.1002/uog.17228
7. Bolnick JM, Kilburn BA, Bajpayee S, Reddy N, Jeelani R et al. Trophoblast retrieval and isolation from the cervix (TRIC) for noninvasive prenatal screening at 5 to 20 weeks of gestation. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102 (1): 135-142.e6. doi: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2014.04.008
8. Bulmer JN, Cioni R, Bussani C, Cirigliano V, Sole F et al. HLA-G positive trophoblastic cells in transcervical samples and their isolation and analysis by laser microdissection and QF-PCR. Prenatal Diagnosis 2003; 23 (1): 34-39. doi: 10.1002/pd.511
9. Imudia AN, Suzuki Y, Kilburn BA, Yelian FD, Diamond MP et al. Retrieval of trophoblast cells from the cervical canal for prediction of abnormal pregnancy: a pilot study. Human Reproduction 2009; 24 (9): 2086-2092. doi: 10.1093/humrep/ dep206
10. Adinolfi M, Sherlock J. Fetal cells in transcervical samples at an early stage of gestation. Journal of Human Genetics 2001;46(3):99-104. doi:10.1007/s100380170095
11. Hatt L, Brinch M, Singh R, Møller K, Lauridsen RH et al. Characterization of fetal cells from the maternal circulation by microarray gene expression analysis-could the extravillous trophoblasts be a target for future cell-based non-invasive prenatal diagnosis? Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 2014; 35 (3): 218-227. doi: 10.1159/000356073
12. Fritz R, Kohan-Ghadr HR, Sacher A, Bolnick AD, Kilburn BA et al. Trophoblast retrieval and isolation from the cervix (TRIC) is unaffected by early gestational age or maternal obesity. Prenatal Diagnosis 2015; 35 (12): 1218-1222. doi: 10.1002/pd.4681
13. Miller D, Briggs J, Rahman MS, Griffith-Jones M, Rane V et al. Transcervical recovery of fetal cells from the lower uterine pole: reliability of recovery and histological/ immunocytochemical analysis of recovered cell populations. Human Reproduction1999; 14 (2): 521-531. doi: 10.1093/ humrep/14.2.521
14. Hoang S, Ahn J, Mann K, Bint S, Mansour S et al. Detection of mosaicism for genome imbalance in a cohort of 3,042 clinical cases using an oligonucleotide array CGH platform. European Journal of Medical Genetics 2011; 54 (2): 121-129. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2010.10.010
15. Ballif BC, Rorem EA, Sundin K, Lincicum M, Gaskin S et al. Detection of low-level mosaicism by array CGH in routine diagnostic specimens. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 2006; 15; 140 (24): 2757-2767. doi: 10.1002/ ajmg.a.31539