Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Journal of Medical Genetics logoLink to Journal of Medical Genetics
. 1990 Dec;27(12):780–781. doi: 10.1136/jmg.27.12.780

Anaphase lag as the most likely mechanism for monosomy X in direct cytotrophoblasts but not in mesenchymal core cells from the same villi.

M B Qumsiyeh 1, A T Tharapel 1, L P Shulman 1, J L Simpson 1, S Elias 1
PMCID: PMC1017282  PMID: 2074563

Abstract

A 36 year old white female was referred for chorionic villus sampling for advanced maternal age. Direct (cytotrophoblast) preparations of chorionic villi were 45,X, but cultured mesenchymal core cells from the same villi were 46,XX. Study of embryonic and extraembryonic tissues showed the aneuploidy to be limited to cytotrophoblasts from specific placental sites. In aggregate, the cytogenetic findings can best be explained by anaphase lag during development of the cytotrophoblast, suggesting that this cytological mechanism and not non-disjunction is responsible for the common occurrence of monosomy X in villi.

Full text

PDF
780

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Breed A. S., Mantingh A., Beekhuis J. R., Kloosterman M. D., ten Bolscher H., Anders G. J. The predictive value of cytogenetic diagnosis after CVS: 1500 cases. Prenat Diagn. 1990 Feb;10(2):101–110. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970100206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Callen D. F., Korban G., Dawson G., Gugasyan L., Krumins E. J., Eichenbaum S., Petrass J., Purvis-Smith S., Smith A., Den Dulk G. Extra embryonic/fetal karyotypic discordance during diagnostic chorionic villus sampling. Prenat Diagn. 1988 Jul;8(6):453–460. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970080610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hogge W. A., Schonberg S. A., Golbus M. S. Chorionic villus sampling: experience of the first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Jun;154(6):1249–1252. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(86)90707-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ledbetter D. H., Martin A. O., Verlinsky Y., Pergament E., Jackson L., Yang-Feng T., Schonberg S. A., Gilbert F., Zachary J. M., Barr M. Cytogenetic results of chorionic villus sampling: high success rate and diagnostic accuracy in the United States collaborative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Feb;162(2):495–501. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(90)90419-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Tharapel A. T., Elias S., Shulman L. P., Seely L., Emerson D. S., Simpson J. L. Resorbed co-twin as an explanation for discrepant chorionic villus results: non-mosaic 47,XX,+16 in villi (direct and culture) with normal (46,XX) amniotic fluid and neonatal blood. Prenat Diagn. 1989 Jul;9(7):467–472. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970090703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Vejerslev L. O., Mikkelsen M. The European collaborative study on mosaicism in chorionic villus sampling: data from 1986 to 1987. Prenat Diagn. 1989 Aug;9(8):575–588. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970090807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Genetics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES