4.6 Article

Circulating trophoblastic cells provide genetic diagnosis in 63 fetuses at risk for cystic fibrosis or spinal muscular atrophy

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 508-520

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.08.002

关键词

circulating fetal cells; cystic fibrosis; diagnostic accuracy; ISET; non-invasive prenatal diagnosis; spinal muscular atrophy

资金

  1. INSERM (Institut National de Sante et Recherche Medicale)
  2. AFM (Association Francaise contre les Myopathies)
  3. Anjou Mucoviscidose
  4. ABCF
  5. Mucoviscidose
  6. Vaincre la Mucoviscidose
  7. Universite Paris Descartes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study sought to determine whether a reliable non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NI-PND) of cystic fibrosis (CF) or spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) can be achieved through analysis of circulating fetal trophoblastic cells (CFTC). The kinetics of CFTC circulation were also studied. CFTC were isolated by isolation by size of epithelial tumour/trophoblastic cells at 9-11 weeks of gestation, before chorionic villus sampling (CVS), from the blood of 63 pregnant women at 25% risk for having a child affected by either CF (n = 32) or SMA (n = 31). Collected cells were laser-microdissected, short tandem repeat-genotyped to determine fetal origin and blindly assessed for mutation analysis. CFTC were independently analysed weekly (4-12 weeks of gestation) in 14 women who achieved pregnancy following IVF. Diagnostic results were compared with those obtained by CVS. All seven CF and seven SMA pregnancies carrying an affected fetus were correctly identified as well as non-affected pregnancies. CFTC provided 100% diagnostic sensitivity (95% CI 76.8-100%) and specificity (95% CI 92.7-100%) in these 63 consecutive pregnancies at risk for CF or SMA. CFTC were found to circulate from 5 weeks of gestation and can be used to develop an early and reliable approach for NI-PND. (C) 2012, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据