4.6 Article

Abnormal Circulating Maternal miRNA Expression Is Associated with a Low (<4%) Cell-Free DNA Fetal Fraction

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11112108

Keywords

miRNA; NIPT; low cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fetal fraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that aberrant maternal miRNA expression in circulating plasma may be a cause of dysregulating trophoblast invasion and migration, as well as a novel factor contributing to a low cfDNAff in pregnant women's sera during NIPT analysis.
The present pilot study investigates whether an abnormal miRNA profile in NIPT plasma samples can explain the finding of a low cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fetal fraction (cfDNAff) in euploid fetuses and non-obese women. Twelve women who underwent neoBona(R) NIPT with a normal fetal karyotype were studied. Six with a cfDNAff < 4% were matched with a control group with normal levels of cfDNAff > 4%. Samples were processed using the nanostring nCounter(R) platform with a panel of 800 miRNAs. Four of the maternal miRNAs, miR-579, miR-612, miR-3144 and miR-6721, had a significant abnormal expression in patients. A data filtering analysis showed that miR-579, miR-612, miR-3144 and miR-6721 targeted 169, 1, 48 and 136 placenta-specific genes, respectively. miR-579, miR-3144 and miR-6721 shared placenta-specific targeted genes involved in trophoblast invasion and migration pathways (IGF2R, PTCD2, SATB2, PLAC8). Moreover, the miRNA target genes encoded proteins localized in the placenta and involved in the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia, including chorion-specific transcription factor GCMa, PRG2, Lin-28 Homolog B and IGFBP1. In conclusion, aberrant maternal miRNA expression in circulating plasma could be a source of dysregulating trophoblast invasion and migration and could represent a novel cause of a low cfDNAff in the sera of pregnant women at the time of NIPT analysis.

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