Advertisement

The current and future impact of genome-wide sequencing on fetal precision medicine

  • Riwa Sabbagh
  • Ignatia B. Van den VeyverEmail author
Review

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing and other genomic technologies are transforming prenatal and reproductive screening and testing for fetal genetic disorders at an unprecedented pace. Original approaches of screening and testing for fetal genetic and genomic disorders were focused on a few more prevalent conditions that were easily diagnosable with pre-genomic era diagnostic tools. First, chromosomal microarray analysis and then next-generation sequencing brought technology capable of more detailed genomic evaluation to prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis. This has facilitated parallel introduction of a variety of new tests on maternal blood samples, including expanded carrier screening and cell-free DNA-based non-invasive screening for fetal aneuploidy, selected copy number variants, and single-gene disorders. Genomic tests on fetal DNA samples, obtained primarily through amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, include chromosomal microarray analysis and gene panel and exome sequencing. All these form the diagnostic pillar of the emerging field of fetal precision medicine, but their implementation is associated with ethical, counseling and healthcare resource utilization challenges. We discuss where in the reproductive and prenatal care continuum these exciting new technologies are integrated, along with associated challenges. We propose areas of priority for research to gain the data in support of their responsible implementation into clinical reproductive and prenatal care.

Notes

Funding

This work is supported in part by the administrative core of the Baylor College of Medicine Intellectual and Developmental disabilities Research Center, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant U54HD083092. IVdV also receives support for research on prenatal genome sequencing from NIH grant HD055651. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

RS has no conflicts to declare. IVdV conducts research on prenatal genome sequencing research that receives support from Illumina.

Supplementary material

439_2019_2088_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

References

  1. Abou Tayoun AN, Spinner NB, Rehm HL, Green RC, Bianchi DW (2018) Prenatal DNA sequencing: clinical, counseling, and diagnostic laboratory considerations. Prenat Diagn 38:26–32.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D’Antonio F (2015) Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:16–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14636 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Board of Directors (2015) ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 17:68–69.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) (2019) Practice Advisory Cell-free DNA to Screen for Single-Gene Disorders. https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Practice-Advisories/Cell-free-DNA-to-Screen-for-Single-Gene-Disorders. Accessed 21 Feb 2019
  5. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Committee on Genetics (2016a) Practice Bulletin No. 162 Summary: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. Obstet Gynecol 127:976–978.  https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000001438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) Committee on Genetics (2016b) Practice Bulletin No. 163 Summary: screening for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol 127:979–981.  https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000001439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antonarakis SE (2019) Carrier screening for recessive disorders. Nat Rev Genet 20:549–561.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0134-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baird PA, Anderson TW, Newcombe HB, Lowry RB (1988) Genetic disorders in children and young adults: a population study. Am J Hum Genet 42:677–693PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaudet AL (2016) Using fetal cells for prenatal diagnosis: History and recent progress. Am J Med Genet C 172:123–127.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bell CJ et al (2011) Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med 3:65ra64.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Best S, Wou K, Vora N, Van den Veyver IB, Wapner R, Chitty LS (2018) Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn 38:10–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bianchi DW, Chiu RWK (2018) Sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA during pregnancy. N Engl J Med 379:464–473.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1705345 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Biesecker LG, Green RC (2014) Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med 371:1170.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1408914 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chitty LS, David AL, Gottschalk I, Oepkes D, Westgren M, Götherström C, Consortium O (2016) EP21.04. BOOSTB4: clinical study to determine safety and efficacy of pre- and/or postnatal stem cell transplantation for treatment of osteogenesis imperfecta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 48(S1):356.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiu RW et al (2008) Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy by massively parallel genomic sequencing of DNA in maternal plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20458–20463.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810641105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chokoshvili D, Borry P, Vears DF (2017) A systematic analysis of online marketing materials used by providers of expanded carrier screening. Genet Med.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.222 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark MM, Stark Z, Farnaes L, Tan TY, White SM, Dimmock D, Kingsmore SF (2018) Meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray in children with suspected genetic diseases. NPJ Genom Med 3:16.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-018-0053-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Dhillon RK, Hillman SC, Morris RK, McMullan D, Williams D, Coomarasamy A, Kilby MD (2014) Additional information from chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) over conventional karyotyping when diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 121:11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Drury S et al (2015) Exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 35:1010–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4675 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Drury S, Mason S, McKay F, Lo K, Boustred C, Jenkins L, Chitty LS (2016) Implementing non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) in a national health service laboratory; From Dominant to Recessive Disorders. Adv Exp Med Biol 924:71–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42044-8_14 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eddleman K et al (2003) Pregnancy loss rates after midtrimester amniocentesis: the faster trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:S111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards JG et al (2015) Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstet Gynecol 125:653–662.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans MI, Wapner RJ, Berkowitz RL (2016) Noninvasive prenatal screening or advanced diagnostic testing: caveat emptor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:298–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fan HC, Blumenfeld YJ, Chitkara U, Hudgins L, Quake SR (2008) Noninvasive diagnosis of fetal aneuploidy by shotgun sequencing DNA from maternal blood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:16266–16271.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808319105 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fan HC, Gu W, Wang J, Blumenfeld YJ, El-Sayed YY, Quake SR (2012) Non-invasive prenatal measurement of the fetal genome. Nature 487:320–324.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11251 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Filges I, Friedman JM (2015) Exome sequencing for gene discovery in lethal fetal disorders—harnessing the value of extreme phenotypes. Prenat Diagn 35:1005–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman JM (1981) Genetic disease in the offspring of older fathers. Obstet Gynecol 57:745–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH (2015) Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 45:249–266.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14791 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gray KJ, Wilkins-Haug LE, Herrig NJ, Vora NL (2019) Fetal phenotypes emerge as genetic technologies become robust. Prenat Diagn.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5532 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Green RC et al (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15:565–574.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Gregg AR, Edwards JG (2018) Prenatal genetic carrier screening in the genomic age. Semin Perinatol 42:303–306.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2018.07.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayward J, Chitty LS (2018) Beyond screening for chromosomal abnormalities: advances in non-invasive diagnosis of single gene disorders and fetal exome sequencing. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 23:94–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Henneman L et al (2016) Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 24:e1–e12.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.271 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Hillman SC et al (2013) Use of prenatal chromosomal microarray: prospective cohort study and systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41:610–620.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. ISPD, SMFM, PQF (2018) Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 38:6–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalia SS et al (2017) Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 19:249–255.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kitzman JO et al (2012) Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. Sci Transl Med 4:137ra176.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3004323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kong A et al (2012) Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature 488:471–475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11396 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Langlois S, Benn P, Wilkins-Haug L (2015) Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 4: pre-conception expanded carrier screening should replace all current prenatal screening for specific single gene disorders. Prenat Diagn 35:23–28.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4532 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Larson JE, Cohen JC (2000) In utero gene therapy. Ochsner J 2:107–110PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Lefkowitz RB et al (2016) Clinical validation of a non-invasive prenatal test for genome-wide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215:227.e216–227.e221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, Rai V, Sargent IL, Redman CW, Wainscoat JS (1997) Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. Lancet 350:485–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lo YM et al (2010) Maternal plasma DNA sequencing reveals the genome-wide genetic and mutational profile of the fetus. Sci Transl Med 2:61ra91.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001720 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lord J et al (2019) Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet 393:747–757.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31940-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin J et al (2015) Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 104:1286–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. McKie AB et al (2014) Germline mutations in RYR1 are associated with foetal akinesia deformation sequence/lethal multiple pterygium syndrome. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2:148.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-014-0148-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Meier N et al (2019) Exome sequencing of fetal anomaly syndromes: novel phenotype-genotype discoveries. Eur J Hum Genet 27:730–737.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0324-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Meng L et al (2017) Use of exome sequencing for infants in intensive care units: ascertainment of severe single-gene disorders and effect on medical management. JAMA Pediatr.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3438 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Normand EA, Alaimo JT, Van den Veyver IB (2018a) Exome and genome sequencing in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril 109:213–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Normand EA et al (2018b) Clinical exome sequencing for fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities and a suspected Mendelian disorder genome medicine 10:74.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-018-0582-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petrovski S et al (2019) Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 393:758–767.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32042-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Reddy UM et al (2012) Karyotype versus microarray testing for genetic abnormalities after stillbirth. N Engl J Med 367:2185–2193.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1201569 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Rezaei M et al (2018) A reappraisal of circulating fetal cell noninvasive prenatal testing. Trends Biotechnol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Richards S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17:405–424.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Rifai N, Topol E, Chan E, Lo YM, Wittwer CT (2015) Disruptive innovation in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 61:1129–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.243667 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sagar R, Walther-Jallow L, David AL, Götherström C, Westgren M (2018) Fetal mesenchymal stromal cells: an opportunity for prenatal cellular therapy. Curr Stem Cell Rep 4:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-018-0118-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider H et al (2018) Prenatal correction of X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia. N Engl J Med 378:1604–1610.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1714322 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sun K et al (2018) Size-tagged preferred ends in maternal plasma DNA shed light on the production mechanism and show utility in noninvasive prenatal testing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804134115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Suzumori N et al (2018) Compound heterozygous RYR1 mutations by whole exome sequencing in a family with three repeated affected fetuses with fetal akinesia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 230:200–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.09.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Toriello HV, Meck JM, Professional P, Guidelines C (2008) Statement on guidance for genetic counseling in advanced paternal age. Genet Med 10:457–460.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e318176fabb CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Vestergaard EM et al (2017) On the road to replacing invasive testing with cell-based NIPT: five clinical cases with aneuploidies, microduplication, unbalanced structural rearrangement or mosaicism. Prenat Diagn 37:1120–1124.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5150 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Vora NL, Hui L (2018) Next-generation sequencing and prenatal ‘omics: advanced diagnostics and new insights into human development. Genet Med 20:791–799.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0087-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Vora NL et al (2017) Prenatal exome sequencing in anomalous fetuses: new opportunities and challenges. Genet Med 19:1207–1216.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.33 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Vossaert L et al (2018) Reliable detection of subchromosomal deletions and duplications using cell-based noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 38:1069–1078.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5377 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Wapner RJ et al (2012) Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 367:2175–2184.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203382 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Williams J 3rd, Rad S, Beauchamp S, Ratousi D, Subramaniam V, Farivar S, Pisarska MD (2015) Utilization of noninvasive prenatal testing: impact on referrals for diagnostic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(102):e101–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wulff CB, Gerds TA, Rode L, Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Tabor A, Danish Fetal Medicine Study G (2016) Risk of fetal loss associated with invasive testing following combined first-trimester screening for Down syndrome: a national cohort of 147,987 singleton pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15820 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Yang Y et al (2014) Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA 312:1870–1879.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14601 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang J et al (2019) Non-invasive prenatal sequencing for multiple Mendelian monogenic disorders using circulating cell-free fetal DNA. Nat Med 25:439–447.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0334-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular and Human GeneticsBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Pavilion for Women, Texas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children’s HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations