Premium
High frequency of tissue‐specific mosaicism in Turner syndrome patients
Author(s) -
Nazarenko Sergey A,
Timoshevsky Vladimir A,
Sukhanova Natalia N
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
clinical genetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.543
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1399-0004
pISSN - 0009-9163
DOI - 10.1034/j.1399-0004.1999.560108.x
Subject(s) - monosomy , aneuploidy , biology , karyotype , fluorescence in situ hybridization , metaphase , interphase , autosome , turner syndrome , microbiology and biotechnology , cytogenetics , chromosome , genetics , centromere , pathology , medicine , endocrinology , gene
Interphase fluorescent studies of X chromosome aneuploidy in cultured and uncultured blood lymphocytes and oral mucosa epithelial cells using X centromere‐specific DNA probe in addition to standard karyotype analysis were performed in 50 females with a clinical suspicion of Turner syndrome. All the patients were previously screened for the presence of ‘hidden’ Y chromosome mosaicism, using the primers DYZ3 and DYZ. The use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of interphase nuclei of tissues from different germ layers (lymphocytes from mesoderm and buccal epithelial cells from ectoderm) improves the accuracy of detection of low‐level mosaicism. FISH studies on interphase nuclei revealed that 29% of patients with a pure form of monosomy X detected by metaphase analysis are, in fact, mosaics. The level of cells with the normal chromosomal constitution in lymphocytes of these cases as a rule was low, ranging from 3 to 18%, with an average of 7%. Two false‐positive cases and one false‐negative case of X monosomy mosaicism determined by standard cytogenetic approach were detected using FISH analysis. The majority of patients (92%) with mosaic form of Turner syndrome have considerable tissue‐specific differences in levels of X aneuploidy. Our data indicate that in cases when mosaic aneuploidy with low‐level frequency is questionable (approximately 10% and lower), the results of standard metaphase analysis should be supplemented with additional FISH studies of interphase nuclei. Tissue‐specific differences in contents of different cell lines in the same patients point to the necessity of studying more than one tissue from each patient.