4.5 Article

Population screening for 15q11-q13 duplications: corroboration of the difference in impact between maternally and paternally inherited alleles

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01336-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maternally inherited 15q11-q13 duplications are associated with more severe neurodevelopmental anomalies, while paternally inherited duplications are normal or associated with milder phenotypes. Our analysis of low coverage genome-wide cell-free DNA sequencing data from pregnant women confirms this difference in impact and recommends appropriate genetic counselling for women with 15q11-q13 duplications identified during non-invasive prenatal screening.
Maternally inherited 15q11-q13 duplications are generally found to cause more severe neurodevelopmental anomalies compared to paternally inherited duplications. However, this assessment is mainly inferred from the study of patient populations, causing an ascertainment bias towards patients at the more severe end of the phenotypic spectrum. Here, we analyze the low coverage genome-wide cell-free DNA sequencing data obtained from pregnant women during non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). We detect 23 15q11-q13 duplications in 333,187 pregnant women (0.0069%), with an approximately equal distribution between maternal and paternal duplications. Maternally inherited duplications are always associated with a clinical phenotype (ranging from learning difficulties to intellectual impairment, epilepsy and psychiatric disorders), while paternal duplications are normal or associated with milder phenotypes (mild learning difficulties and dyslexia). This data corroborates the difference in impact between paternally and maternally inherited 15q11-q13 duplications, contributing to the improvement of genetic counselling. We recommend reporting 15q11-q13 duplications identified during genome-wide NIPS with appropriate genetic counselling for these pregnant women in the interest of both mothers and future children.

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

4.5
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