Embryos of Robertsonian Translocation Carriers Exhibit a Mitotic Interchromosomal Effect That Enhances Genetic Instability during Early Development

English version České info

Balanced chromosomal rearrangements represent one of the most common forms of genetic abnormality affecting approximately 1 in every 500 (0.2%) individuals. Difficulties processing the abnormal chromosomes during meiosis lead to an elevated risk of chromosomally abnormal gametes, resulting in high rates of miscarriage and/or children with congenital abnormalities. It has also been suggested that the presence of chromosome rearrangements may also cause an increase in aneuploidy affecting structurally normal chromosomes, due to disruption of chromosome alignment on the spindle or disturbance of other factors related to meiotic chromosome segregation. The existence of such a phenomenon (an inter-chromosomal effect—ICE) remains controversial, with different studies presenting contradictory data. The current investigation aimed to demonstrate conclusively whether an ICE truly exists. For this purpose a comprehensive chromosome screening technique, optimized for analysis of minute amounts of tissue, was applied to a unique collection of samples consisting of 283 oocytes and early embryos derived from 44 patients carrying chromosome rearrangements. A further 5,078 oocytes and embryos, derived from chromosomally normal individuals of identical age, provided a robust control group for comparative analysis. A highly significant (P = 0.0002) increase in the rate of malsegregation affecting structurally normal chromosomes was observed in association with Robertsonian translocations. Surprisingly, the ICE was clearly detected in early embryos from female carriers, but not in oocytes, indicating the possibility of mitotic rather than the previously suggested meiotic origin. These findings have implications for our understanding of genetic stability during preimplantation development and are of clinical relevance for patients carrying a Robertsonian translocation. The results are also pertinent to other situations when cellular mechanisms for maintaining genetic fidelity are relaxed and chromosome rearrangements are present (e.g. in tumors displaying chromosomal instability).

Vyšlo v časopise: Embryos of Robertsonian Translocation Carriers Exhibit a Mitotic Interchromosomal Effect That Enhances Genetic Instability during Early Development. PLoS Genet 8(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003025
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003025

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. JacobsPA, MelvilleM, RatcliffeS (1974) A cytogenetic survey of 11,680 newborn infants. Ann Hum Genet 37: 359–376.

2. ScrivenPN, HandysideAH, OglivieCM (1998) Chromosome translocations: segregation modes and strategies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 18: 1437–1449.

3. CampanaM, SerraA, NeriG (1986) Role of chromosome aberrations in recurrent abortion: a study of 269 balanced translocations. Am J Med Genet 24: 341–356.

4. FrynesJP, BuggenhoutGV (1998) Structural chromosome rearrangements in couples with recurrent fetal wastage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Peprod Biol 81: 171–176.

5. SternC, PertileM, NorrisH, HaleL, BakerHW (1999) Chromosome translocations in couples with in-vitro fertilization implantation failure. Hum Reprod 14: 2097–2101.

6. LejeuneMD (1963) Autosomal disorders. Pediatrics 32: 326–337.

7. RousseauxS, ChevretE, MonteilM, CozziJ, PelletierR, et al. (1995) Sperm nuclei analysis of Robertsonian t(14q21q) carrier, by FISH, using three plasmids and two YAC probes. Hum Genet 96: 655–660.

8. GianaroliL, MagliMC, FerrarettiAP, MunneS, BalicchiaB, et al. (2002) Possible interchromosomal effect in embryos generated by gametes from translocation carriers. Hum Reprod 12: 3201–3207.

9. AntonE, VidalF, BlancoJ (2008) Reciprocal translocations: tracing their meiotic behaviour. Genet Med 10: 730–738.

10. Juchniuk de VozziMS, SantosSA, PereiraCS, CuzziJF, LaureanoLA, et al. (2009) Meiotic segregation and interchromosomal effect in the sperm of a double translocation carrier, a case report. Mol Cytogenet 2: 24.

11. AntonE, BlancoJ, VidalF (2010) Meiotic behaviour of three D;G Robertsonian translocations: segregation and interchromosomal effect. J Hum Genet 55: 541–545.

12. VozdovaM, OracoveE, MusilovaP, KaslikovaK, PrinosilovaP, et al. (2011) Sperm and embryo analysis of similar t(7;10) translocations transmitted in two families. Fertil Steril 96: e66–70.

13. MartinRH (1988) Cytogenetic analysis of sperm from a male heterozygous for a 13;14 Robertsonian translocation. Hum Genet 80: 357–361.

14. SymeRM, MartinRH (1992) Meiotic segregation of a 21;22 Robertsonian translocation. Hum Reprod 7: 825–829.

15. MunnéS, EscuderoT, FischerJ, ChenS, HillJ, et al. (2005) Negligible interchromosomal effect in embryos of Robertsonian translocation carriers. Reprod Biomed Online 10: 363–369.

16. Van HummelenP, ManchesterD, LoweX, WyrobekAJ (1997) Meiotic segregation, recombination, and gamete aneuploidy assessed in a t(1;10)(p22.1;q22.3) reciprocal translocation carrier by three- and four-probe multicolor FISH in sperm. Am J Hum Genet 61: 651–659.

17. BlancoJ, EgozcueJ, ClusellasN, VidalF (1998) FISH on sperm heads allows the analysis of chromosome segregation and interchromosomal effects in carriers of structural rearrangements: results in a translocation carrier, t(5;8)(q33;q13). Cytogenet Cell Genet 83: 275–280.

18. ConnCM, HarperJC, WinstonRM, DelhantyJD (1998) Infertile couples with Robertsonian translocations: preimplantation genetic analysis of embryos reveals chaotic cleavage divisions. Hum Genet 102: 117–23.

19. MunneS, ScottR, SableD, CohenJ (1998) First pregnancies after preconception diagnosis of translocations of maternal origin. Fertil Steril 69: 675–681.

20. HarperJC, CoonenE, De RyckeM, HartonG, MoutouC, et al. (2010) ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection X: cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Hum Reprod 25: 2685–2707.

21. AlfarawatiS, FragouliE, CollsP, WellsD (2011) First births after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of structural chromosome abnormalities using comparative genomic hybridization and microarray analysis. Hum Reprod 26: 1560–1574.

22. FiorentinoF, SpizzichinoL, BonoS, BiricikA, KokkaliG, et al. (2011) PGD for reciprocal and Robertsonian translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod 26: 1925–1935.

23. VannesteE, MelotteC, VoetT, RobberechtC, DeborckS, et al. (2011) PGD for a complex chromosomal rearrangement by array comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Reprod 26: 941–949.

24. TreffNR, TaoX, SchillingsWJ, BerghPA, ScottRTJr, et al. (2011) Use of single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays to distinguish between balanced and normal chromosomes in embryos from a translocation carrier. Fertil Steril 96: e58–65.

25. DelhantyJD, HarperJC, AoA, HandysideAH, WinstonRM (1997) Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients. Hum Genet 99: 755–760.

26. MunneS, SandalinasM, EscuderoT, MarquezC, CohenJ (2002) Chromosome mosaicism in cleavage-stage human embryos: evidence of a maternal age effect. Reprod Biomed Online 4: 223–232.

27. Katz-JaffeMG, TrounsonAO, CramDS (2004) Mitotic errors in chromosome 21 of human preimplantation embryos are associated with non-viability. Mol Hum Reprod 10: 143–147.

28. WellsD, DelhantyJD (2000) Comprehensive chromosomal analysis of human preimplantation embryos using whole genome amplification and single cell comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 6: 1055–1562.

29. VoullaireL, SlaterH, WilliamsonR, WiltonL (2000) Chromosome analysis of blastomeres from human embryos by using comparative genomic hybridization. Hum Genet 106: 210–217.

30. VannesteE, VoetT, La CaignecC, AmpeM, KoningsP, et al. (2009) Chromosome instability is common in human cleavage-stage embryos. Nat Med 15: 577–583.

31. GuichaouaMR, QuackB, SpeedRM, NoelB, ChandleyAC, et al. (1990) Infertility in human males with autosomal translocations: meiotic study of a 14;22 Robertsonian translocation. Hum Genet 86: 162–166.

32. Van KoningbruggenS, GierlinskiM, SchofieldP, MartinD, BartonGJ, et al. (2010) High-resolution whole-genome sequencing reveals that specific chromatin domains from most human chromosomes associate with nucleoli. Mol Biol Cell 21: 3735–3748.

33. MalmgrenH, SahlénS, InzunzaJ, AhoM, RosenlundB, et al. (2002) Single cell CGH analysis reveals a high degree of mosaicism in human embryos from patients with balanced structural chromosome aberrations. Mol Hum Reprod 8: 502–510.

34. SchoolcraftWB, FragouliE, StevensJ, MunneS, Katz-JaffeMG, et al. (2010) Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 94: 1700–1706.

35. RiusM, ObradorsA, DainaG, CuzziJ, MarquèsL, et al. (2010) Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Hum Reprod 25: 1824–1835.

36. GeraedtsJ, MontagM, MagliMC, ReppingS, HandysideA, et al. (2011) Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 26: 3173–3180.

37. Gutierrez-MateoC, CollsP, Sanchez-GarciaJ, EscuderoT, PratesR, et al. (2011) Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril 95: 953–958.

38. FragouliE, AlfarawatiS, DaphnisDD, GoodallNN, ManiaA, et al. (2011) Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocysts with the use of FISH, CGH and aCGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 26: 480–490.