4.7 Article

Cardio-pathogenic variants in unexplained intrauterine fetal death: a retrospective pilot study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85893-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Investigating cardio-pathogenic variants in singleton fetuses after unexplained intrauterine fetal death revealed that most male fetuses died at a median gestational age of 34 weeks, with a high proportion of variants of uncertain significance in cardio-specific genes.
To describe the prevalence and spectrum of cardio-pathogenic variants in singleton fetuses after unexplained intrauterine fetal death (IUFD). DNA from post-mortem fibroblastic tissue samples of 16 fetuses after unexplained IUFD was retrieved at two tertiary university hospitals for clinical exome sequencing with subsequent filtering of 122 cardio-specific genes to elucidate underlying cardio-pathogenic variants. In total, we included 12 (75%) male and four (25%) female fetuses who were stillborn at a median gestational age of 34(+6) (23(+2)-40(+5)) weeks. In two (12.5%) fetuses no cardio-pathogenic variants were found. In 14 (87.5%) fetuses, overall 33 variants were detected in 22 cardio-specific genes, involving 14 (63.63%) genes associated with cardiomyopathy, six (27.27%) arrhythmogenic susceptibility genes and two (9.09%) arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy associated genes. Among the 33 variants, five (15.2%) were classified as likely benign according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; 28 (84.8%) variants were considered as variants of uncertain significance. Compared to a cohort of explained IUFDs, the cases with and without fetal variants in cardiac genes differed not significantly regarding maternal age, previous history of stillbirth, time of stillbirth or fetal sex. Unexplained stillbirth may be caused by cardio-genetic pathologies, yet a high number of variants of uncertain significance merit a more detailed post-mortem examination including family segregation analysis.

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

4.7
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