Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 133, Issue 4, pp 999–1006 | Cite as

Microdeletion at 8q24.13 rather than multistep microsatellite mutation resulting in the genetic inconsistency at the D8S1179 locus in a true trio

  • Chao Xiao
  • Yaowu Wang
  • Fei Liao
  • Shaohua Yi
  • Daixin HuangEmail author
Case Report

Abstract

When using microsatellite loci for DNA paternity testing, genetic inconsistencies sometimes occur in true trios and duos and may be erroneously attributed to germline mutations of microsatellite alleles. Here, we reported a typical case and discussed the issue of how to find out the cause of a genetic inconsistency. In our case, a genetic inconsistency in a true trio was observed at the D8S1179 locus, where the father has only allele 10 as compared to only allele 16 of his son. A set of tests were then performed. The results showed that the inconsistency was not result from the germline mutation of allele 10 to allele 16, or from the presence of null alleles due to primer binding site mutations, but from the microdeletion at 8q24.13, about 2.99 to 49.76 kb, detected in both the father and his son, which revealed by deletion mapping using short tandem repeats (STRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). In conclusion, genetic inconsistencies observed in true trios or duos cannot be rashly attributed to germline STR mutations, especially multistep mutations, in the absence of verification or specification; otherwise, the reliability of the genetic proofs established will be challenged.

Keywords

Genetic inconsistency D8S1179 Germline mutation Allelic dropout Microdeletion STR SNP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Hong Tian for her support in the karyotype analysis.

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81373250) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (HUST No. 2016YXZD025).

Supplementary material

414_2018_1900_Fig4_ESM.png (3.4 mb)
Fig. S1

The genotypes of 7 STRs across 8q24.11 – 8q24.2 shown by silver staining. 1: the father, 2: the mother, 3: the child, M: DNA molecular weight marker. (PNG 3448 kb)

414_2018_1900_MOESM1_ESM.tif (8.9 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 9148 kb)
414_2018_1900_MOESM2_ESM.bmp (2 mb)
Fig. S2 The recovery of possible null alleles at the D8S1179 locus. The annealing temperature (Ta) of PCRs for the AGCU EX22 kit and the AmpFℓSTR® Identifiler kit were reduced to 55 °C and 50 °C for the amplification of genomic DNA from the alleged father (A and C) and his child (B and D). The allele 11 at the D8S1179 locus (D) may be due to exaggerated stochastic effects during the PCR. (BMP 2078 kb)
414_2018_1900_Fig5_ESM.png (2.5 mb)
Fig. S3

The sequences of the repeat and flanking regions for the alleles of the D8S1179 locus by bidirectional Sanger sequencing. The chromatograms from allele 10 of the alleged father (A and B), from allele 13 (C and D) and allele 16 (E and F) of the mother, and from allele 16 (G and H) of the child were shown. (PNG 2599 kb)

414_2018_1900_MOESM3_ESM.tif (4.6 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 4756 kb)
414_2018_1900_Fig6_ESM.png (1 mb)
Fig. S4

The karyotype of the child (46, XY). (PNG 1026 kb)

414_2018_1900_MOESM4_ESM.tif (4.4 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 4473 kb)
414_2018_1900_MOESM5_ESM.bmp (5.9 mb)
Fig. S5 The identification of genotypes of SNP rs6470322 used as an example to interpret how to obtain the genotypes of the target SNPs based on the bidirectional sequencing chromatograms. ChromasPro can identify possible point mutations (highlighted in yellow) between sequencing reads of different clones, and heterogeneous point mutations (highlighted in light purple) where both alleles are sequenced in the one reaction, leading to a double-peak in the chromatogram. Therefore, the genotypes of the father, the child and the mother at SNP rs6470322 can be determined as C, T and C/T respectively based on the sequencing chromatograms by the forward primer (A). These results are also verified with reverse primers (B). (BMP 6042 kb)
414_2018_1900_Fig7_ESM.png (255 kb)
Fig. S6

The approximate chromosomal position of the microdeletion shown on the UCSC genome browser. Based on data generated from deletion mapping, we can determine that the microdeletion is within the region chr8:124,861,050 – 124,910,806 (hg38), with the smallest range being chr8: 124,893,438 – 124,896,415 (hg38). CHLC.GATA7G07: D8S1179; LINC00964: long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 964 (position: hg38 chr8:124,848,766 – 124,944,612). (PNG 254 kb)

414_2018_1900_MOESM6_ESM.tif (384 kb)
High resolution image (TIF 384 kb)
414_2018_1900_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (541 kb)
Table S1 (PDF 540 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Butler JM (2007) Short tandem repeat typing technologies used in human identity testing. Biotechniques 43:ii–ivCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butler JM (2015) The future of forensic DNA analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 370:20140252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benschop CC, van der Beek CP, Meiland HC, van Gorp AG, Westen AA, Sijen T (2011) Low template STR typing: effect of replicate number and consensus method on genotyping reliability and DNA database search results. Forensic Sci Int Genet 5:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vieira TC, Duarte Gigonzac MA, Goulart Rodovalho R, Morais Cavalcanti L, Bernardes Minasi L, Melo Rodrigues F, da Cruz AD (2017) Mutation rates in 21 autosomal short tandem repeat loci in a population from Goiás, Brazil. Electrophoresis 38:2791–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giardina E, Peconi C, Cascella R, Sinibaldi C, Foti Cuzzola V, Nardone AM, Bramanti P, Novelli G (2009) A multiplex molecular assay for the detection of uniparental disomy for human chromosome 7. Electrophoresis 30:2008–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leibelt C, Budowle B, Collins P, Daoudi Y, Moretti T, Nunn G, Reeder D, Roby R (2003) Identification of a D8S1179 primer binding site mutation and the validation of a primer designed to recover null alleles. Forensic Sci Int 133:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernández L, Lapunzina P, Arjona D, López Pajares I, García-Guereta L, Elorza D, Burgueros M, De Torres ML, Mori MA, Palomares M, García-Alix A, Delicado A (2005) Comparative study of three diagnostic approaches (FISH, STRs and MLPA) in 30 patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Clin Genet 68:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walsh PS, Metzger DA, Higuchi R (1991) Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506–513Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogden SJ, Lamerton KL, Tatnell PJ (2015) Evaluation of the AGCU Expressmarker 16 and 22 PCR amplification kits using biological samples applied to FTA micro cards in reduced volume direct PCR amplification reactions. J Forensic Sci Med 1:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu BF, Zhang YD, Shen CM, Du WA, Liu WJ, Meng HT, Wang HD, Yang G, Jin R, Yang CH, Yan JW, Bie XH (2015) Developmental validation of the AGCU 21+1 STR kit: a novel multiplex assay for forensic application. Electrophoresis 36:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou H, Bi G, Zhang C, Liu Y, Chen R, Li F, Mei X, Guo Y, Zheng W (2016) Developmental validation of forensic DNA-STR kits: expressmarker 16+10Y and expressmarker 16+18Y. Forensic Sci Int Genet 24:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lazaruk K, Wallin J, Holt C, Nguyen T, Walsh PS (2001) Sequence variation in humans and other primates at six short tandem repeat loci used in forensic identity testing. Forensic Sci Int 119:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maxam AM, Gilbert W (1977) A new method for sequencing DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 74:560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barch MJ (1991) The ACT cytogenetics laboratory manual. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gjertson DW, Brenner CH, Baur MP, Carracedo A, Guidet F, Luque JA, Lessig R, Mayr WR, Pascali VL, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Morling N (2007) ISFG: recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China (2016) Technical standards for paternity testing. http://www.moj.gov.cn/index/download/site3/20161013/4437e62603961969356202.doc. Accessed 2 May 2018
  17. 17.
    Knowles MA, Shaw ME, Proctor AJ (1993) Deletion mapping of chromosome 8 in cancers of the urinary bladder using restriction fragment length polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms. Oncogene 8:1357–1364Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ting JC, Roberson ED, Miller ND, Lysholm-Bernacchi A, Stephan DA, Capone GT, Ruczinski I, Thomas GH, Pevsner J (2007) Visualization of uniparental inheritance, Mendelian inconsistencies, deletions, and parent of origin effects in single nucleotide polymorphism trio data with SNPtrio. Hum Mutat 28:1225–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brenner CH (2004) Multiple mutations, covert mutations and false exclusions in paternity casework. Int Congr 1261:112–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dauber EM, Kratzer A, Neuhuber F, Parson W, Klintschar M, Bär W, Mayr WR (2012) Germline mutations of STR-alleles include multi-step mutations as defined by sequencing of repeat and flanking regions. Forensic Sci Int Genet 6:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D'Haene B, Vandesompele J, Hellemans J (2010) Accurate and objective copy number profiling using real-time quantitative PCR. Methods 50:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hindson BJ, Ness KD, Masquelier DA, Belgrader P, Heredia NJ, Makarewicz AJ, Bright IJ, Lucero MY, Hiddessen AL, Legler TC, Kitano TK, Hodel MR, Petersen JF, Wyatt PW, Steenblock ER, Shah PH, Bousse LJ, Troup CB, Mellen JC, Wittmann DK, Erndt NG, Cauley TH, Koehler RT, So AP, Dube S, Rose KA, Montesclaros L, Wang S, Stumbo DP, Hodges SP, Romine S, Milanovich FP, White HE, Regan JF, Karlin-Neumann GA, Hindson CM, Saxonov S, Colston BW (2011) High-throughput droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantitation of DNA copy number. Anal Chem 83:8604–8610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watson CT, Marques-Bonet T, Sharp AJ, Mefford HC (2014) The genetics of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes: an update. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 15:215–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Børsting C, Morling N (2015) Next generation sequencing and its applications in forensic genetics. Forensic Sci Int Genet 18:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Happ H, Schilter KF, Weh E, Reis LM, Semina EV (2016) 8q21.11 microdeletion in two patients with syndromic peters anomaly. Am J Med Genet A 170:2471–2475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forensic Medicine, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations