medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8013 (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

2022, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med UAS 2022; 12 (2)

Chromosomal analysis in couples with recurrent miscarriages: A pilot study

Picos-Cárdenas VJ, Bernal-Ortiz MF, Espinoza-Galván S, López-Castro FK, López-Quintero AE, Mijangos-González DR, Morgan-Ortiz F, Trapero-Corona IM, Meza-Espinoza JP

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 97-103
PDF size: 267.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background. Recurrent miscarriage impacts approximately 5% of couples trying to have children; one of its main causes is the presence of chromo-somal abnormalities in one of the partners, which produce gametes with genomic imbalance that lead to pregnancies incompatible with life and are aborted within a few weeks of gestation. Objective. To perform karyotyping of all couples with recurrent miscarriages in the gynecology service of the General Hospital of Culiacán for one year. Material and Methods. Karyotyping was performed in 34 couples whose anatomical and hormonal studies were normal and TORCH profile was negative. Karyotyping was performed by culturing lymphocytes stimulated with phytohemagglutinin, incubated at 37ºC for 72 h, and stained with GTG bands. Twenty cells were analyzed for every individual; in patients in whom chromosomal abnormalities were found, 50 cells were analyzed, and in mosaics 100. Results. In seven couples (20.6%) a chromosomal abnormality was detected; in five this was present in females and in two in males. Three reciprocal translocations [t(1;14)(p36;q32), t(5;13)(p13;q34), and t(6;17)(p23;p13)], one Robertsonian translocation [rob(15;22)(q10;q10)], one inversion [inv(20)(p12q11.2)] and two females with mosaic X chromosome aneuploidies were identified. Con-clusions. The prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in this study is relatively high, compared with similar studies carried out in the Mexican population, therefore these results highlight the importance of performing chromosomal analysis in all those couples with recurrent miscarriage and for whom a specific cause has not yet been diagnosed.


REFERENCES

  1. Brugo OS, Chillik C, Kopelman S. Definición y causas de la infertilidad. Rev Col Obstet Gin 2003;54(4):228-48.

  2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98(5):1103-11.

  3. Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH, Martin CL. Comparative ge-nomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicro-scopic imbalances in spontaneous miscar-riages. Am J Hum Genet 2004;74(6):1168-74.

  4. Stephenson M, Kutteh W. Evaluation and management of recurrent early pregnancy loss. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50(1):132-45.

  5. Arias-Sosa LA, Acosta ID, Lucena-Quevedo E, Moreno-Ortiz H, Esteban-Pérez C, Fo-rero-Castro M. Genetic and epigenetic varia-tions associated with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35(3):355-66.

  6. Portnoi MF, Joye N, van den Akker J, Morlier G, Taillemite JL. Karyotypes of 1,142 cou-ples with recurrent abortion. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72(1):31-4.

  7. Makino T, Tabuchi T, Nakada K, Iwasaki K, Tamura S, Iizuka R. Chromosomal analysis in Japanese couples with repeated sponta-neous abortions. Int J Fertil 1990;35(5):266-70.

  8. Fryns JP, Van Buggenhout G. Structural chromosome rearrangements in couples with recurrent fetal wastage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998;81(2):171-6.

  9. Meza-Espinoza JP, Ortiz Anguiano L, Rivera H. Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with reproductive disorders. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2008;66:237-40.

  10. De la Fuente-Cortés BE, Cerda-Flores RM, Dávila-Rodríguez MI, García-Vielma C, De la Rosa Alvarado RM, Cortés-Gutiérrez EI. Chromosomal abnormalities and polymor-phic variants in couples with repeated mis-carriage in Mexico. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18(4):543-8.

  11. Dutta UR, Rajitha P, Pidugu VK, Dalal AB. Cytogenetic abnormalities in 1162 couples with recurrent miscarriages in southern re-gion of India: Report and review. J Assist Re-prod Genet 2011;28(2):145-9.

  12. Niroumanesh S, Mehdipour P, Farajpour A, Darvish S. A cytogenetic study of couples with repeated spontaneous abortions. Ann Saudi Med 2011;31(1):77‑9.

  13. Ghazaey S, Keify F, Mirzaei F, Maleki M, Tootian S, Ahadian M, et al. Chromosomal analysis of couples with repeated spontane-ous abortions in northeastern Iran. Int J Fertil Steril 2015;9(1):47‑54.

  14. Tunc E, Tanriverdi N, Demirhan O, Sul-eymanova D, Cetinel N. Chromosomal anal-yses of 1510 couples who have experienced recurrent spontaneous abortions. Reprod Bi-omed Online 2016;32(4):414‑9.

  15. Frikha R, Kassar O, Elloumi M, Kamoun H. Cytogenetic screening in couples with recur-rent pregnancy loss: A single-center study and review of literature. J Hum Reprod Sci 2021;14(2):191-5.

  16. Miller OJ, Therman E. Clinical importance of translocations, inversions, and insertions In: Human Chromosomes. Springer, fourth Ed. New York, 2001: pp. 239-254.

  17. Clouston HJ. Lymphocyte culture In: Human Cytogenetics: Constitutional analysis, a practical approach. Rooney DE (Ed.), Oxford University press, third ed. New York, 2001: pp. 33-54.

  18. ISCN 2020: An International System for Hu-man Cytogenomic Nomenclature. McGowan-Jordan J, Hastings Simons RJ, Moore S (eds). Cytogenet Genome Res 2020;160:341-503.

  19. Kovaleva NV. Sex-specific chromosome in-stability in early human development. Am J Med Genet A 2005;136A(4):401-13.

  20. Antonelli A, Gandini L, Petrinelli P, Marcucci L, Elli R, Lombardo F, et al. Chromosomal alterations and male infertility. J Endocrinol Invest 2000;23(10):677-83.

  21. Ishikawa M, Hidaka E, Wakui K, Fukushima Y, Katsuyama T. Habitual abortion and high frequency of low frequent X chromosome monosomy mosaicism: detection by inter-phase FISH analysis of buccal mucosa cells and lymphocytes. Rinsho Byori 2000;48(10):955-9.

  22. Durmaz B, Karaca E, Durmaz A, Atik T, Akin H, Cogulu O, et al. Subtelomeric rearrange-ments in patients with idiopathic intellectualdisabilitiy/multiple congenital anomalies and recurrent miscarriages: seven years' experi-ence. Genet Couns 2013;24(2):167-77.

  23. Rajcan-Separovic E, Diego-Alvarez D, Ro-binson WP, Tyson C, Qiao Y, Harvard C, et al. Identification of copy number variants in miscarriages from couples with idiopathic re-current pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod 2010;25(11):2913-22.

  24. Tise CG, Byers HM. Genetics of recurrent pregnancy loss: a review. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2021;33(2):106-111.

  25. Kim JO, Ahn EH, Sakong JH, An HJ, Park HS, Kim YR, et al. Association of miR-27aA>G, miR-423C>a, miR-449bA>G, and miR-604A>G polymorphisms with risk of re-current implantation failure. Reprod Sci 2020;27(1):29-38.

  26. Golestanpour H, Bahrami R, Dastgheib SA, Tabatabaei RS, Javaheri A, Karimi-Zarchi M, et al. A meta-analysis for association of eNOS VNTR 4b/a, -786 T>C and +894G>T polymor-phisms with risk of recurrent pregnancy loss. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2021;304(5):1135-51.

  27. Sui Y, Chen Q, Sun X. Association of skewed X chromosome inactivation and idi-opathic recurrent spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Re-prod Biomed Online 2015 31(2):140-8.

  28. Bobadilla-Morales L, Cervantes-Luna MI, García-Cobián TA, Gómez-Meda BC, de la Torre CO, Corona-Rivera JR, et al. Chro-mosome instability in a patient with recur-rent abortions. Genet Couns 2009;20(2):153-9.

  29. Toncheva D. Fragile sites and spontaneous abortions. Genet Couns 1991;2(4):205-10.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com