Cytogenetic Testing: A Diagnostic Tool for Birth Defects

Tsuchiya Boles^*
*Correspondence: Tsuchiya Boles, Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, NC 27710, USA, Email:

Introduction

Cytogenetic testing plays a crucial role in diagnosing birth defects by analyzing an individual's chromosomes, providing vital information that can guide medical care, counseling, and family planning. This type of testing is instrumental in identifying genetic abnormalities that may lead to a variety of congenital conditions, many of which can impact an individual's development, physical health, and mental well-being. Birth defects, which encompass a wide range of physical and functional abnormalities present at birth, are often linked to genetic mutations, chromosomal imbalances, or other inherited factors. In many cases, the underlying causes of these defects are not immediately apparent, and cytogenetic testing becomes a key tool in understanding the root cause.

The human genome is comprised of 23 pairs of chromosomes, each containing thousands of genes that provide the instructions for the body’s growth, development, and function. When there are alterations in the number, structure, or arrangement of these chromosomes, it can result in a range of developmental and physical abnormalities. These changes, which can be inherited from one or both parents or arise spontaneously during cell division, are often the cause of birth defects. Cytogenetic testing focuses on examining these chromosomal variations and providing a comprehensive picture of an individual’s genetic makeup. By doing so, it helps clinicians identify conditions such as Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and other chromosomal disorders that can cause birth defects [1].

Description

One of the most common forms of cytogenetic testing is karyotyping, a laboratory technique that allows for the visualization of chromosomes under a microscope. This test involves taking a sample of blood, amniotic fluid, or tissue from the individual being tested, which is then cultured in a laboratory. Once the cells are stimulated to divide, they are arrested during cell division at a stage where chromosomes are most visible. The chromosomes are stained, and a technician examines the sample to count the number of chromosomes, check their structure, and identify any abnormalities. This method can detect conditions caused by extra or missing chromosomes, such as trisomy 21, which causes Down syndrome, or monosomy X, which results in Turner syndrome. Karyotyping is particularly valuable for detecting large chromosomal abnormalities, such as aneuploidy, deletions, and translocations [2].

Another powerful technique in cytogenetic testing is Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH), which uses fluorescent probes to bind to specific regions of chromosomes. FISH is a more targeted approach than karyotyping, allowing for the detection of smaller chromosomal abnormalities that might be missed in a standard karyotype. This technique is often used to confirm a suspected diagnosis or to identify micro deletions and micro duplications tiny segments of chromosomal material that are often associated with developmental disorders and congenital anomalies. FISH is particularly useful in diagnosing conditions like Williams syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome, and Prader-Willi syndrome, which may not be easily identified by traditional karyotyping [3,4].

Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) is another advanced cytogenetic testing method that has revolutionized the diagnosis of birth defects. This test offers higher resolution compared to karyotyping and FISH, allowing for the detection of smaller chromosomal imbalances, such as micro deletions and micro duplications that are associated with various genetic disorders. CMA works by examining the genome for Copy Number Variations (CNVs) regions where the number of copies of a chromosomal segment is either increased or decreased. CNVs have been implicated in many developmental and neurological disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, and congenital heart defects [5]. By identifying these subtle genetic changes, CMA enables more accurate diagnoses, better understanding of the underlying causes of birth defects, and improved management of affected individuals.

Cytogenetic testing is not only valuable for diagnosing birth defects but also for determining the risk of these defects in future pregnancies. For example, if one parent carries a chromosomal abnormality, such as a balanced translocation, it can increase the risk of having a child with a genetic disorder. In such cases, cytogenetic testing can be used to assess the genetic makeup of both parents and determine the likelihood of passing on a chromosomal abnormality to their offspring. In addition, cytogenetic testing during pregnancy, through techniques such as amniocentesis or Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), allows healthcare providers to screen for chromosomal abnormalities early in the pregnancy. This information can be crucial for parents who wish to make informed decisions about their pregnancy and prepare for the care of a child with special needs if necessary.

While cytogenetic testing is an invaluable diagnostic tool, it is not without its limitations. Not all birth defects are caused by chromosomal abnormalities, and in many cases, the genetic cause remains unknown despite extensive testing. Additionally, some chromosomal changes may not lead to any obvious symptoms or may only cause mild developmental delays, making it challenging to predict the long-term effects of the abnormality. Furthermore, the process of testing itself can be invasive, especially in the case of prenatal testing like amniocentesis or CVS, which carry a small risk of miscarriage. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to offer appropriate counseling to patients and families before undergoing cytogenetic testing to ensure they understand the potential risks and benefits of the test.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cytogenetic testing is a powerful and indispensable diagnostic tool for identifying and understanding birth defects. Through methods such as karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and chromosomal microarray analysis, clinicians can uncover the genetic causes of birth defects and provide essential information for medical management, family planning, and genetic counseling. While there are challenges and limitations associated with cytogenetic testing, its role in improving the diagnosis and care of individuals with birth defects cannot be overstated. As technology continues to advance, the potential for more precise and personalized genetic testing will only increase, offering hope for better outcomes and a greater understanding of the genetic factors that contribute to birth defects.

Acknowledgment

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Treger, Taryn Dora, Tanzina Chowdhury, Kathy Pritchard-Jones and Sam Behjati. "The genetic changes of Wilms tumour." Nat Rev Nephrol 15 (2019): 240-251.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Grade, Marian, Michael J. Difilippantonio and Jordi Camps. "Patterns of chromosomal aberrations in solid tumors." Chromosomal Instability Cancer Cells (2015): 115-142.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Heng, H. H. Q., G. Liu, J. B. Stevens and B. Y. Abdallah, et al. "Karyotype heterogeneity and unclassified chromosomal abnormalities." Cytogenet Genome Res 139 (2013): 144-157.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Antonescu, Cristina R., Adepitan A. Owosho, Lei Zhang and Sonja Chen, et al. "Sarcomas with CIC-rearrangements are a distinct pathologic entity with aggressive outcome: A clinicopathologic and molecular study of 115 cases." Am J Surg Pathol 41 (2017): 941-949.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Hol, Janna A., Marjolijn CJ Jongmans, Hélène Sudour‐Bonnange and Gema L. Ramírez‐Villar, et al. "Clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with WAGR syndrome and Wilms tumor and/or nephroblastomatosis: The 30‐year SIOP‐RTSG experience." Cancer 127 (2021): 628-638.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at