4.6 Article

Prevalence and instability of fragile X alleles - Implications for offering fragile X prenatal diagnosis

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 3, Pages 596-601

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318163be0b

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To document fragile X allele frequencies in a national referral population and evaluate CGG repeat expansion in mother-offspring transmissions. METHODS: Fragile X DNA analysis by Southern blot and polymerase chain reaction was completed for 14,675 women, aged 18 years or older, and 238 mother-offspring pairs between January 1999 and June 2004. Carrier frequencies were compared between groups referred for different clinical indications. Direct comparison of the FMR1 gene CGG repeat size in mother-offspring pairs determined intermediate and premutation allele stability. RESULTS: Intermediate fragile X alleles (45-54 CGG repeats) occurred in 257 (1 in 57). The combined total number of patients with a premutation (55-200 CGG repeats) or full mutation (more than 200 CGG repeats) numbered 208 (1 in 71). One in 3.5 women with a family history of fragile X and 1 in 10 with premature ovarian failure had a FMR1 mutation. This compared with 1 in 86 for those with a family history of mental retardation and 1 in 257 for women with no known risk factors for fragile X. Among 238 mother-offspring pairings, the smallest allele to expand to a full mutation in one generation contained 60 CGG repeats. Although 6.6% (4 of 60) of intermediate repeat alleles did expand, none jumped to a clinically significant full mutation-sized allele. CONCLUSION: Based on these data and other published literature, offering invasive prenatal diagnosis for fragile X syndrome is not indicated for women with intermediate alleles. Invasive prenatal diagnosis is warranted for those women with a fragile X allele containing 55 or more CGG repeats.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available