Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Utility of MLPA and QF-PCR Techniques in the Genetic Testing of Miscarriages

  • HUMAN GENETICS
  • Published:
Russian Journal of Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most common reasons for pregnancy loss are chromosomal anomalies of the fetus. They are found in as much as half of the miscarriages. The standard technique for assessment of chromosomal abnormalities in spontaneously aborted fetuses has been karyotyping, however, it needs cell culture which is the most vulnerable element of a diagnostic process. At present, there are a number of molecular methods, which skip the necessity of cell culture. In this study, we assess retrospectively the diagnostic yield of two commonly used molecular techniques (MLPA and QF-PCR) for aneuploidy detection in miscarriages. A total of 674 samples were analyzed. The QF-PCR assay for chromosomes 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, X and Y was used. Two subtelomeric and subcentromeric probe kits covering all chromosomes were used in MLPA tests. In QF-PCR test, chromosomal abnormalities were found in 49.5% of cases. Trisomies constituted 25.7%, monosomies X— 12.9% and triploidies—10.9%. In the MLPA series, a total of 55.1% samples turned out to carry a chromosomal aberration. Trisomies were found in 43.2% of all good quality samples, chromosome X monosomies accounted for 13.4% of samples, and triploidies were detected in 11.3%. Both QF-PCR and MLPA methods may be successfully implemented as an alternative for standard karyotype in testing material from spontaneous abortion. QF-PCR has lower sensitivity comparing to MLPA in detecting aneuploidies, however, it is an effective tool for the detection of polyploidies. It should be noted, that using these techniques, the maternal cell contamination should be considered as an important issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Gilmore, D.H. and McNay, M.B., Spontaneous fetal loss rate in early pregnancy, Lancet, 1985, vol. 1, no. 8420, p. 107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guerneri, S., Bettio, D., and Simoni, G., Prevalence and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in a sample of first trimester internal abortions, Hum. Reprod., 1987, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 735—739.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilcox, A.J., Weinberg, C.R., O’Connor, J.F., et al., Incidence of early loss of pregnancy, N. Engl. J. Med., 1988, vol. 319, no. 4, pp. 189—194.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Menasha, J., Levy, B., Hirschhorn, K., and Kardon, N.B., Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study, Genet. Med., 2005, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 251—263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lebedev, I., Molecular cytogenetics of recurrent missed abortions, Indian J. Med. Res., 2006, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 9—10.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Warburton, D., Cytogenetics of reproductive wastage: from conception to birth, in Medical Cytogenetics, New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000, pp. 213—246.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Morales, C., Sánchez, A., Bruguera, J., et al., Cytogenetic study of spontaneous abortions using semi-direct analysis of chorionic villi samples detects the broadest spectrum of chromosome abnormalities, Am. J. Med. Genet., 2008, vol. 146A, no. 1, pp. 66—70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Massalska, D., Zimowski, J.G., Bijok, J., et al., First trimester pregnancy loss: clinical implications of genetic testing, J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 2017, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 23—29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jenderny, J., Chromosome aberrations in a large series of spontaneous miscarriages in the German population and review of the literature, Mol. Cytogenet., 2014, vol. 7, p. 38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Robberecht, C., Schuddinck, V., Fryns, J.P., and Vermeesch, J.R., Diagnosis of miscarriages by molecular karyotyping: benefits and pitfalls, Genet. Med., 2009, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 646—654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bell, K.A., Van Deerlin, P.G., Haddad, B.R., and Feinberg, R.F., Cytogenetic diagnosis of “normal 46,XX” karyotypes in spontaneous abortions frequently may be misleading, Fertil. Steril., 1999, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 334—341.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Donaghue, C., Davies, N., Ahn, J.W., Thomas, H., et al., Efficient and cost-effective genetic analysis of products of conception and fetal tissues using a QF-PCR/array CGH strategy; five years of data, Mol. Cytogenet., 2017, vol. 10, p. 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenfeld, J.A., Tucker, M.E., Escobar, L.F., et al., Diagnostic utility of microarray testing in pregnancy loss, Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2015, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 478—486.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajcan-Separovic, E., Next generation sequencing in recurrent pregnancy loss-approaches and outcomes, Eur. J. Med. Genet., 2019, pp. 1769—7212.

  15. Carp, H., Toder, V., Aviram, A., et al., Karyotype of the abortus in recurrent miscarriage, Fertil. Steril., 2001, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 678—682.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rose, R., Venkatesh, A., Pietilä, S., et al., Utility and performance of bacterial artificial chromosomes-on-beads assays in chromosome analysis of clinical prenatal samples, products of conception and blood samples, J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 2019, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 830—840.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Qu, S., Wang, L., Cai, A., et al., Exploring the cause of early miscarriage with SNP-array analysis and karyotyping, J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal Med., 2019, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1—10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lalou, I., Gkrozou, F., Meridis, E., et al., Molecular investigation of uniparental disomy (UPD) in spontaneous abortions, Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2019, vol. 236, pp. 116—120.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Moein-Vaziri, N., Fallahi, J., Namavar-Jahromi, B., et al., Clinical and genetic-epigenetic aspects of recurrent hydatidiform mole: a review of literature, Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2018, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1—6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pérez-Durán, J., Nájera, Z., Trujillo-Cabrera, Y., et al., Aneusomy detection with Karyolite-Bac on Beads® is a cost-efficient and high throughput strategy in the molecular analyses of the early pregnancy conception losses, Mol. Cytogenet., 2015, vol. 8, p. 63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Łaczmańska, I., Gil, J., Stembalska, A., Makowska, I., et al., Rapid diagnosis of the most common fetal aneuploidies with the QF-PCR method—a study of 100 cases, Ginekol. Pol., 2015, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 694—699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dai, R., Li, L., Zhu, H., Geng, D., et al., Effect of maternal age on spontaneous abortion during the first trimester in Northeast China, J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med., 2018, vol. 31, no. 14, pp. 1824—1829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wou, K., Hyun, Y., Chitayat, D., et al., Analysis of tissue from products of conception and perinatal losses using QF-PCR and microarray: a three-year retrospective study resulting in an efficient protocol, Eur. J. Med. Genet., 2016, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 417—424.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kroon, B., Harrison, K., Martin, N., et al., Miscarriage karyotype and its relationship with maternal body mass index, age, and mode of conception, Fertil. Steril., 2011, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 1827—1829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Soler, A., Morales, C., Mademont-Soler, I., et al., Overview of chromosome abnormalities in first trimester miscarriages: a series of 1011 consecutive chorionic Villi sample karyotypes, Cytogenet. Genome Res., 2017, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 81—89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Warburton, D., Kline, J., and Kinney, A., No maternal age relationship for polyploidy, Hum. Genet., 1994, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 725—726.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Goddijn, M. and Leschot, N.J., Genetic aspects of miscarriage, Baillieres Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2000, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 855—865.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pylyp, L.Y., Spynenko, L.O., Verhoglyad, N.V., et al., Chromosomal abnormalities in products of conception of first-trimester miscarriages detected by conventional cytogenetic analysis: a review of 1000 cases, J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 2018, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 265—271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lathi, R.B., Gustin, S.L., Keller, J., et al., Reliability of 46,XX results on miscarriage specimens: a review of 1222 first-trimester miscarriage specimens, Fertil. Steril., 2014, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 178—182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zimowski, J.G., Massalska, D., Pawelec, M., et al., First-trimester spontaneous pregnancy loss—molecular analysis using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, Clin. Genet., 2016, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 620—624.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Simpson, J.L., Genetics of Spontaneous Abortion, London: Informa Healthcare, 2007, pp. 23—34.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Isidori, I., Spapperi, C., Barbati, A., et al., QF-PCR and MLPA: a reliable molecular system to detect chromosomal alterations in miscarriages, Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol., 2017, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 220—225.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Caramins, M.C., Saville, T., Shakeshaft, R., et al., A comparison of molecular and cytogenetic techniques for the diagnosis of pregnancy loss, Genet. Med., 2011, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 46—51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland

    K. Bernatowicz, K. Piotrowski, A. Kashyap & J. Gronwald

  2. Department of Genetics, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warszawa, Poland

    J. Zimowski & M. Bednarska-Makaruk

  3. Genetics Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Wrocław, Poland

    I. Łaczmańska & M. Sąsiadek

Authors
  1. K. Bernatowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Zimowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Łaczmańska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Piotrowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Kashyap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Bednarska-Makaruk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Sąsiadek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Gronwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Bernatowicz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of compliance with standards of research involving humans as subjects. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. An informed consent was collected from all patients who contributed to this study. Samples with lack of consent were excluded from further analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernatowicz, K., Zimowski, J., Łaczmańska, I. et al. Clinical Utility of MLPA and QF-PCR Techniques in the Genetic Testing of Miscarriages. Russ J Genet 55, 1259–1265 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1134/S102279541910003X

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S102279541910003X

Keywords:

Search

Navigation