Advertisement

Rapid Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH)

  • Anja WeiseEmail author
  • Thomas Liehr
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1885)

Abstract

The most common aneuploidies observed in prenatal diagnostics in the second trimester are trisomies of the chromosomes 13, 18 or 21 and gonosomal abnormalities. Rapid detection of these aneuploidies after amniocentesis is possible by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) utilizing centromeric or locus-specific probes. FISH aneuploidy screening results in uncultured amniocytes are available within 24 h or less. Operators should be aware that there are possible pitfalls in connection with the commercially available probe sets and in result interpretation in general and thus proceed with appropriate caution. Here, we explain how rapid prenatal aneuploidy screening is performed using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA-) approved Aneu Vysion kit (ABBOTT/Vysis) and a review is given of drawbacks and opportunities of the method.

Key words

Prenatal diagnosis Molecular cytogenetics Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) Interphase FISH Pitfalls 

References

  1. 1.
    Hulten MA, Dhanjal S, Pertl B (2003) Rapid and simple prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome disorders: advantages and disadvantages of the molecular methods FISH and QF-PCR. Reproduction 126(3):279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Held KR (2003) QS Zytogenetik Bericht 2002/2003. Med Genet 15:420–421Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Claussen U, Ulmer R, Beinder E et al (1993) Rapid karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a comparative study of the 'pipette method' and the 'in situ' technique for chromosome harvesting. Prenat Diagn 13(12):1085–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liehr T, Ziegler M (2005) Rapid prenatal diagnostics in the interphase nucleus: procedure and cut-off rates. J Histochem Cytochem 53(3):289–291.  https://doi.org/10.1369/jhc.4B6394.2005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caine A, Maltby AE, Parkin CA et al (2005) Prenatal detection of Down's syndrome by rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18, and 21 by FISH or PCR without a full karyotype: a cytogenetic risk assessment. Lancet 366(9480):123–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66790-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiben B, Trawicki W, Hammans W et al (1999) Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidies in uncultured amniocytes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Evaluation of >3,000 cases. Fetal Diagn Ther 14(4):193–197.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000020919CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leung WC, Waters JJ, Chitty L (2004) Prenatal diagnosis by rapid aneuploidy detection and karyotyping: a prospective study of the role of ultrasound in 1589 second-trimester amniocenteses. Prenat Diagn 24(10):790–795.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tepperberg J, Pettenati MJ, Rao PN et al (2001) Prenatal diagnosis using interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH): 2-year multi-center retrospective study and review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 21(4):293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weremowicz S, Sandstrom DJ, Morton CC et al (2001) Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for rapid detection of aneuploidy: experience in 911 prenatal cases. Prenat Diagn 21(4):262–269.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witters I, Devriendt K, Legius E et al (2002) Rapid prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 in 5049 consecutive uncultured amniotic fluid samples by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Prenat Diagn 22(1):29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Estabrooks LL, Hanna JS, Lamb AN (1999) Overwhelming maternal cell contamination in amniotic fluid samples from patients with oligohydramnios can lead to false prenatal interphase FISH results. Prenat Diagn 19(2):179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liehr T, Beensen V, Hauschild R et al (2001) Pitfalls of rapid prenatal diagnosis using the interphase nucleus. Prenat Diagn 21(5):419–421.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liehr T, Schreyer I, Neumann A et al (2002) Two more possible pitfalls of rapid prenatal diagnostics using interphase nuclei. Prenat Diagn 22(6):497–499.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Skinner JL, Govberg IJ, DePalma RT et al (2001) Heteromorphisms of chromosome 18 can obscure detection of fetal aneuploidy by interphase FISH. Prenat Diagn 21(8):702–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liehr T, Starke H, Beensen V et al (1999) Translocation trisomy dup(21q) and free trisomy 21 can be distinguished by interphase-FISH. Int J Mol Med 3(1):11–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mir P, Rodrigo L, Mateu E et al (2010) Improving FISH diagnosis for preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening. Hum Reprod 25(7):1812–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toutain J, Epiney M, Begorre M et al (2010) First-trimester prenatal diagnosis performed on pregnant women with fetal ultrasound abnormalities: the reliability of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on mesenchymal core for the main aneuploidies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 149(2):143–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.12.015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jena University Hospital, Institute of Human Genetics, Friedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations