Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2022 Jul 1;60(1):59–67. doi: 10.1002/uog.24885

Exome sequencing as first‐tier test for fetuses with severe central nervous system structural anomalies

Y Yaron 1,2,#,✉, V Ofen Glassner 1,#, A Mory 1, N Zunz Henig 1, A Kurolap 1, A Bar Shira 1, D Brabbing Goldstein 1,3, D Marom 1,2, L Ben Sira 2,4, H Baris Feldman 1,2, G Malinger 2,3, K Krajden Haratz 2,3,#, A Reches 1,3,#
PMCID: PMC9328397  PMID: 35229910

ABSTRACT

Objective

Prenatally detected central nervous system (CNS) anomalies present a diagnostic challenge. In this study, we compared the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with a major CNS anomaly.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 114 cases referred for genetic evaluation following termination of pregnancy (TOP) due to a major CNS anomaly detected on prenatal ultrasound. All fetuses were first analyzed by CMA. All CMA‐negative cases were offered ES. CMA‐positive cases were reanalyzed using ES to assess its ability to detect copy‐number variants (CNVs).

Results

CMA identified a pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) CNV in 11/114 (10%) cases. Eighty‐six CMA‐negative cases were analyzed using ES, which detected P/LP sequence variants in 38/86 (44%). Among recurrent cases (i.e. cases with a previously affected pregnancy), the incidence of P/LP sequence variants was non‐significantly higher compared with non‐recurrent ones (12/19 (63%) vs 26/67 (39%); P = 0.06). Among the 38 cases with an ES diagnosis, 20 (53%) were inherited and carried a significant risk of recurrence. Reanalysis of 10 CMA‐positive cases by ES demonstrated that the bioinformatics pipeline used for sequence variant analysis also detected all P/LP CNVs, as well as three previously known non‐causative CNVs.

Conclusions

In our study, ES provided a high diagnostic yield (> 50%) in fetuses with severe CNS structural anomalies, which may have been partly due to the highly selected case series that included post‐TOP cases from a specialist referral center. These data suggest that ES may be considered as a first‐tier test for the prenatal diagnosis of major fetal CNS anomalies, detecting both P/LP sequence variants and CNVs. This is of particular importance given the time constraints of an ongoing pregnancy and the risk of recurrence in future pregnancies. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Keywords: brain, central nervous system, chromosomal microarray, copy‐number variant, exome sequencing, fetus, malformation, prenatal diagnosis

CONTRIBUTION —

What are the novel findings of this work?

In this study of 114 cases that underwent termination of pregnancy following the detection of a major central nervous system anomaly, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) detected causative copy‐number variants (CNVs) in 10% of fetuses. Among 86 CMA‐negative cases, exome sequencing (ES) detected causative sequence variants in 44%. The ES bioinformatics pipeline also detected 13 of the causative and previously known non‐causative CNVs.

What are the clinical implications of this work?

Our data suggest that ES could be considered as a first‐tier clinical diagnostic test in the prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with major CNS anomalies, as it can detect both sequence variants and CNVs.

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 2–5% of pregnancies present with a sonographically detected fetal anomaly that warrants further evaluation 1 . These anomalies range from an apparently isolated defect to multisystem malformations. A karyotype abnormality is found in 8–10% of cases with such an anomaly that undergo diagnostic testing, and a copy‐number variant (CNV) is identified in an additional 6%, leaving the majority of cases without a specific genetic diagnosis 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . This is because many anomalies have monogenic etiology (i.e. a single‐gene disorder caused by a point mutation or small insertion/deletion) 1 . The detection of such genetic aberrations requires much higher resolution, which can be achieved only by next‐generation sequencing technology, such as targeted multigene panels, exome sequencing (ES) or whole‐genome sequencing. ES is sometimes applied as a second‐ or third‐tier diagnostic test in selected cases of fetal anomaly. Recent work has shown that ES provides an additional yield of 5–57% over that of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in the prenatal setting 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 .

The central nervous system (CNS) is affected in 9% of fetal malformations but accounts for as much as one‐third of all pregnancy terminations due to fetal anomaly. Moreover, CNS abnormalities are often diagnosed late in pregnancy 10 . When applying conventional methods (karyotyping followed by CMA or CMA alone) to the diagnosis of fetal CNS anomalies, the estimated diagnostic yield does not exceed 20% 11 , 12 , 13 . Thus, more than 80% of cases remain without a genetic diagnosis, probably owing to a large proportion of cases having monogenic etiology.

In this study, we compared the diagnostic yield of ES and CMA in fetuses with a major CNS anomaly leading to termination of pregnancy. In addition, we sought to determine the diagnostic yield for specific categories of CNS anomaly.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all cases referred to our institution for genetic evaluation following termination of pregnancy due to a major fetal CNS anomaly between 2014 and 2021. All patients underwent detailed neurosonographic examination in orthogonal planes, as described previously 14 , at the Division of Obstetric Ultrasound at the Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, which is a tertiary referral center for fetal CNS anomalies. Patients then received comprehensive genetic counseling at the Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis Unit of the Genetics Institute. Following counseling, patients signed a standard clinical consent form for genetic testing.

Clinical data were retrieved retrospectively from electronic medical records at the Genetics Institute and prenatal ultrasound reports, as well as fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, were also retrieved when available. All patient information was anonymized. Families with recurrent CNS anomalies were considered as a single case. Cases were further subcategorized according to clinical findings. Cases with multiple brain anomalies were categorized as ‘complex’, while cases with additional extracranial anomalies were categorized as ‘multisystem’. Cases in which the anomaly affected only one brain developmental process were described separately according to the category, as determined by consensus: malformation of cortical development, midline anomaly (corpus callosal, septal, holoprosencephaly), brain cyst (subependymal, arachnoid), midbrain–hindbrain malformation and neural tube defect. These cases were defined as ‘isolated severe CNS malformations’. Of note, mild isolated findings, such as mild ventriculomegaly, were not included in this study. Hydrocephalus secondary to aqueductal stenosis was considered a midbrain–hindbrain anomaly. Brain damage was not considered an isolated anomaly if the insult affected different regions of the brain simultaneously.

Genetic analysis

As routine practice, all cases of fetal anomaly subjected to termination of pregnancy underwent DNA extraction from amniotic fluid or fetal blood (obtained during feticide). Extraction from blood always produced sufficient DNA. Direct extraction following amniocentesis usually suffices for both CMA and ES, but, occasionally, cell culture is needed if both analyses are to be performed.

All cases were first analyzed by CMA, some prior to termination of pregnancy and some as part of the post‐termination work‐up. CMA was performed using a CytoScan 750K array (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The platform is composed of 550 000 non‐polymorphic CNV probes and more than 200 000 single‐nucleotide polymorphism probes, with an average resolution of 100 kb. Analysis was performed using the Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) software v 3.1 (Affymetrix). Detected CNVs were classified as either pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), benign, likely benign or as a variant of uncertain clinical significance (VOUS), according to the updated American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) guidelines 15 . A genomic map from the University of California, Santa Cruz Genome Browser 16 was used to map the locations of CNVs and gene content according to build hg19/GRCh37. The Database of Genomic Variants 17 , as well as our internal database, provided catalogs of structural variations found in healthy controls.

All patients with a negative CMA result received further genetic counseling and were offered ES trio analysis. CMA‐positive cases were reanalyzed using ES to assess its ability to detect CNVs. DNA samples from parents–fetus trios underwent ES. The first 15 cases were outsourced to external accredited clinical laboratories (Centogene or CeGat, Germany). Cases 1–5 have been reported previously 18 . The majority (71 initially evaluated cases and 10 reanalyzed cases (84%)) were sequenced and analyzed at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Genomics Center. Sequencing was performed on a NovaSeq 6000 sequencer (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) with 100‐bp paired‐end reads.

The entire bioinformatics pipeline from FASTQ files to the final report was performed using the Franklin genetic analysis platform (Genoox, Tel Aviv, Israel). FASTQ files were aligned against the hg19/GRCh37 reference genome using BWA v 0.7.16 19 . Variant calling for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels was performed using Genome Analysis Toolkit v 4.0.12.0 20 and FreeBayes v 1.1.0 21 .

In addition to SNVs and small indels, the Franklin pipeline also detects CNVs using Genoox proprietary CNV‐caller, which mainly utilizes coverage information and is expected to detect CNVs down to a resolution of two exons in the heterozygous state and a single exon in the homozygous state 22 .

Sequence variant annotation, classification and prioritization, as well as CNV classification, were performed using Franklin according to ACMG guidelines 15 , 23 . The bioinformatics analysis was based solely on the prenatal phenotype. The minimal criteria for a sample to be included in the analysis were average coverage of 70 × and at least 98% of variants with a quality score above 40. Family‐case analysis was prepared considering different possible modes of inheritance. The variants were filtered, retaining the following: (1) rare variants with minor allele frequency < 5%; (2) protein‐altering variants; (3) variants in coding regions or those up to 10 bp from splice junctions; (4) variants with a high or medium aggregated quality score. Variants were prioritized by Franklin based on their degree of pathogenicity and clinical information transcribed into Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms 24 .

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Social Science Statistics 25 ; P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

The study included 114 consecutive cases following termination of pregnancy due to a major fetal CNS anomaly. MRI was performed in 25 cases at a median gestational age of 30 weeks. Postmortem confirmation of the imaging findings was obtained in 21 cases. All fetuses were first analyzed by CMA. Eleven (10%) cases had a P/LP CNV (Figure 1), most of which were deletions harboring haploinsufficient genes (Table 1). These included nine de‐novo CNVs, one case of triploidy and a case with a terminal deletion of 3p26.1 and a terminal duplication of 8q24.3, compatible with an unbalanced reciprocal translocation. In the latter case, parental karyotyping revealed that the mother carried a balanced translocation 46,XX,t(3;8)(p26.1;q24.3), conferring a significant risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies.

Figure 1.

UOG-24885-FIG-0001-b

Open in a new tab

Flowchart summarizing genetic testing workflow in cases that underwent termination of pregnancy following detection of a fetal central nervous system (CNS) anomaly on ultrasound. CMA, chromosomal microarray analysis; ES, exome sequencing.

Table 1.

Pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) copy‐number variants detected by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) among 114 cases of fetal central nervous system anomaly

Case Clinical findings Category CMA result Causative gene(s) Genomic coordinates Size (kb) CMA classification
9 Dysplastic CC, irregular ventricular wall, pontine hypoplasia Complex brain del14q22.3* OTX2 arr14q22.3(56 616 566–57 447 523) × 1    830 P
11 Dysplastic CC, signs of MCD Complex brain del16p13.3* CREBBP arr16p13.3(3 650 502–4 005 644) × 1    335 P
15 Microcephaly, cerebellar hypoplasia, VSD, ARSA, echogenic kidneys, deviated stomach, absent gallbladder Multisystem Triploidy† Multiple arr(1–22X) × 3 P
17 Dysplastic CC, delayed sulcation, pontocerebellar hypoplasia Complex brain del5p15.33p14.3* Multiple arr5p15.33p14.3(1–19 807 631) × 1 19 080 P
18 CC agenesis, fused thalami, abnormal midbrain Complex brain del5q14.3* MEF2C arr5q14.3(87 265 522–88 674 041) × 1   1409 P
27 Vermian dysgenesis, abnormal anterior horns, signs of MCD, pelvic kidney Multisystem del12q24.33* Multiple arr12q24.33(130 958 926–133 777 562) × 1   2818 LP
47 Macrocephaly, mild VM, dysplastic CC, signs of MCD, overgrowth Multisystem del8q22.1* PTDSS1 arr8q22.1(97 214 184–98 480 468) × 1   1266 P
53 Dysplastic CC, irregular ventricular walls, abnormal brainstem morphology, signs of MCD, annular pancreas Multisystem del3q13.31q21.2* Multiple arr3q13.31q21.2(116 161 679–125 721 029) × 1   9559 P
54 Vermian hypoplasia MBHB del3q24q25.1‡ ZIC1 arr3q24q25.1(143 357 046–149 188 029) × 1   5831 P
63 Asymmetric VM, dysplastic CC, signs of MCD Complex brain del17p13.3p13.2* PAFAH1B1 (LIS1) arr17p13.3p13.2(838 750–4 034 456) × 1   3196 P
71 Dysplastic CC, signs of MCD, short long bones, IUGR, oligohydramnios Multisystem del3p26.1/dup8q24.3*, § Multiple arr3p26.1(61 891–5 443 206) × 1/arr8q24.3(144 794 838–1 462 957 710) × 3 5381/1501    P
Open in a new tab
*

Deletion also detected by exome sequencing.

†

Triploidy suspected by exome sequencing due to low homozygosity/heterozygosity ratio.

‡

Insufficient DNA for confirmation by exome sequencing.

§

Maternal balanced reciprocal translocation 46XX,t(3;8)(p26.2;q24.3).

ARSA, aberrant right subclavian artery; CC, corpus callosum; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; MBHB, midbrain–hindbrain malformation; MCD, malformation of cortical development; VM, ventriculomegaly; VSD, ventricular septal defect.

Of the 103 CMA‐negative cases, 13 patients declined further analysis by ES and, in four other cases, there was insufficient fetal DNA for further analysis (Figure 1). The remaining 86 cases underwent ES analysis. These included 82 fetus–parents trios, one solo fetal analysis, one fetus–mother duo and two quatros including both parents and two affected fetuses. P/LP (Class V/IV) sequence variants were detected in 38/86 (44%) cases (Table 2). In nine (10%) additional cases, a VOUS with potential clinical relevance was reported (Table S1). In the remaining 39 cases, no variant was reported (Table S2).

Table 2.

Pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) variants detected by exome sequencing among 86 cases of fetal central nervous system anomaly with a negative result on chromosomal microarray analysis

Case Imaging findings Clinical category Gene Variant(s) Variant ACMG classification Zygosity Inheritance pattern
1 VM, pachygyria, cerebellar hypoplasia, dysplastic CC Complex brain TUBA1A NM_006009.4: c.1105G>A; p.(Ala369Thr) P (PP5, PM1, PP2, PM2, PS2) het (de novo) AD
2 CC agenesis, signs of diffuse MCD Complex brain ARX NM_139058.3: c.994C>T; p.(Arg332Cys) LP (PM1, PM2, PM5, PP3, PP4) hemi (mat) XLR
3 Dysplastic CC, signs of MCD, asymmetric anterior horns, hypotelorism Multisystem TUBB3 NM_006086.4: c.728C>T; p.(Pro243Leu) LP (PM1, PM2, PP3, PP2, PP4) het (mat) AD
5 Microcephaly, dysplastic CC, delayed sulcation, cerebellar hypoplasia Complex brain VRK1 NM_003384.3: c.1072C>T; p.(Arg358*) P (PVS1, PM2, PP5) hom AR
28 Interhemispheric cyst, postaxial polydactyly Multisystem GLI2 NM_005270.5: c.2389del; p.(Thr797Profs*3) P (PVS1, PS2, PM2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
35 HPE, dysplastic CC, fused diencephalon, Dandy–Walker malformation Midline anomaly PEX2 NM_000318.3: c.550del; p.(Cys184Valfs*8) P (PVS1, PM2, PP5) hom AR
40 Myelomeningocele, Chiari Type‐II malformation NTD SCRIB NM_015356.5: c.1177C>T; p.(Gln393*) LP (PVS1, PM2)

het

(mat)

 AD
42 Severe VM, abnormal BS morphology, signs of MCD Complex brain GFAP NM_002055.5: c.1109T>C; p.(Leu370Pro) LP (PM1, PM2, PP3, PP2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
46 Severe VM, dysplastic CC, Z‐shaped hypoplastic BS, cerebellar hypoplasia, aqueductal stenosis, signs of MCD Complex brain POMT1

NM_007171.4: c.1045C>A; p.(Pro349Thr)

NM_007171.4: c.2167dup; p.(Asp723Glyfs*8)

 P (PVS1, PM2, PP3, PP4) comp het AR
49 Severe VM, dysplastic CC, aqueductal stenosis, Z‐shaped BS, cerebellar hypoplasia, adducted thumb Multisystem L1CAM NM_000425.5: c.1453C>T; p.(Arg485*) P (PVS1, PM2, PP5) hemi (mat) XLR
50 Severe VM, dysplastic CC, aqueductal stenosis, Z‐shaped BS, cerebellar hypoplasia, signs of MCD, ocular anomaly, retinal detachment Multisystem POMGNT2 NM_032806.6: c.1232_1233del; p.(Gln411Argfs*10) P (PVS1, PM2, PP4) hom AR
55 Microcephaly, signs of MCD, hypotelorism Multisystem CENPJ NM_018451.5: c.3243_3246del; p.(Ser1081Argfs*8) P (PVS1, PM2, PP5) hom AR
61 Partial CC agenesis, thick septal leaves, double collecting system, SUA Multisystem DCC NM_005215.4: c.2T>C; p.(Met1?) LP (PVS1, PM2, PP4)

het

(mat)

 AD
62 VM, dysplastic CC, signs of MCD MCD TUBB NM_001293212.2: c.1141C>T; p.(Leu381Phe) LP (PM1, PM2, PP3, PP2, PP4)

het

(mat)

 AD
65 CC agenesis, interhemispheric cyst, large HC, signs of MCD, abnormal BS Complex brain ERCC2 NM_000400.4: c.2171T>C; p.(Met724Thr) LP (PM2, PP3, PM1, PP4) hom AR
68 Brain tubers, cardiac rhabdomyomas Multisystem TSC2 NC_000016.9 (NM_000548.4): c.481+1G>A P (PVS1, PM2, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
70 CC agenesis, interhemispheric cyst, signs of MCD, pontine hypoplasia Complex brain COL4A1 NC_000013.11 (NM_001845.5): c.388‐1G>C P (PVS1, PS2, PM2, PP4)

het

(de novo)

 AD
72 Dysplastic CC, signs of MCD, abnormal aortic valve, toe syndactyly Multisystem FLNA NM_001110556.2: c.373G>A; p.(Asp125Asn) LP (PM1, PM2, PM4, PP3, PP4) hemi (mat) XLD
73 IVH Grade IV Brain damage COL4A2 NM_001846.4: c.4151_4168del; p.(Ala1381_Gly1386del) LP (PM2, PM4, PP4, PP1)

het

(pat)

 AD
76 Dysplastic CC, signs of MCD Complex brain HUWE1 NM_031407.7: c.12980G>A; p.(Arg4327Gln) LP (PM2, PP1, PP2, PP3, PP4) hemi (mat) XLD
77 Dysplastic CC, abnormal frontal horns, Z‐shaped BS, aqueductal stenosis, vermian dysplasia Complex brain L1CAM NM_000425.5: c.3581C>T; p.(Ser1194Leu) LP (PP5, PP4, PM2, PP3) hemi (mat) XLR
82 Small HC, dysplastic CC, vermian dysgenesis, PVPC, VSD, IUGR, SUA, double collecting system Multisystem TAF1 NM_004606.3: c.4010T>C; p.(lle1337Thr) LP (PM2, PP1, PP4, PP5)

het

(mat)

 XLR
83 Atypical HPE Midline anomaly TCF12 NM_207037.2: c.207del; p.(Tyr70Metfs*17) P (PVS1, PM2, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
87 Dysplastic CC, abnormal basal ganglia, signs of MCD Complex brain FOXG1 NM_005249.5: c.686_687delinsAA; p.(Ile229Lys) P (PM2, PM1, PM5, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
88 Mild VM, signs of MCD (lissencephaly) MCD PAFAH1B1 NM_000430.4: c.368T>A; p.(Met123Lys) LP (PS2, PM2, PP2, PP5)

het

(de novo)

 AD
89 Cephalocele, polycystic kidneys, postaxial polydactyly of hands and feet Multisystem CC2D2A

NM_001080522.2: c.1497del; p.(Glu500Lysfs*11)

NC_000004.11 (NM_001080522.2): c.4179+1del

 P (PVS1, PM2) comp het AR
90 Microcephaly, dysplastic CC, signs of MCD, prenasal edema Multisystem CLTC NM_004859.4: c.4739A>G; p.(Asp1580Gly) LP (PS2, PM2, PP3, PP2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
91 Severe VM, CC agenesis, small HC, cerebellar hypoplasia, signs of MCD Complex brain ARID1B NM_017519.3: c.1637_1638del; p.(Pro546Argfs*93) P (PVS1, PM2, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
93 Large HC, VM, signs of MCD, cerebellar hypoplasia, molar tooth sign, dysplastic CC, hypertelorism, high forehead, postaxial polydactyly of hands, preaxial polydactyly of feet Multisystem OFD1 NC_000023.10 (NM_003611.2): c.2387+1G>C P (PVS1, PM2, PP4) hemi (mat) XLR
94 Mild VM, Z‐shaped BS, dysplastic CC, abnormal orbits, microphthalmia, irregular renal parenchyma Multisystem KANSL1 NM_001193466.1: c.2836A>G; p.(Arg946Gly) LP (PS2, PM2, PP3, PP5)

het

(de novo)

 AD
97 Dysplastic CC, abnormal frontal horns, abnormal BS morphology, asymmetric brain, signs of MCD Complex brain TUBA1A NM_006009.4: c.878A>G; p.(Asn293Ser) LP (PM2, PP5, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
106 IVH Grade IV, microcephaly, right frontal horn disruption, disrupted CC Brain damage COL4A1 NM_001845.6: c.2086G>A; p.(Gly696Ser) P (PM2, PP3, PP5, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
109 Lissencephaly, PVPC MCD CEP85L NM_001042475.3: c.232+2T>A P (PVS1, PM2, PS2)

het

(de novo)

 AD
110 CC dysgenesis, macrocephaly, signs of MCD Complex brain PIK3R2 NM_005027.4: c.1117G>A; p.(Gly373Arg) P (PS2, PM1, PM2, PP5) het (de novo) AD
111 Cephalocele, multicystic kidneys Multisystem TMEM67 NM_153704.6: c.1975C>T; p.(Arg659*)/c.1289‐16_1289‐12delCTTTT) P (PVS1, PM2, PP5)/LP (PS3, PM2, PM3) comp het AR
112 CC agenesis, ganglionic eminence lesions Complex brain TUBB NM_178014.4: c.947T>C; p.(Val316Ala) LP (PS2, PM1, PP4) het (de novo) AD
113 IVH Grade IV Brain damage COL4A1 NM_001845.6: c.1186C>T; p.(Arg396*) P (PVS1, PM2, PS2) het (de novo) AD
114 PVPC Subependymal cysts ATRX NM_000489.6: c.1186A>C; p.(Lys396Gln) LP (PS2, PM2, PP3) het (de novo) X‐linked
Open in a new tab

ACMG, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; AD, autosomal dominant; AR, autosomal recessive; BS, brainstem; comp, compound; CC, corpus callosum; HC, head circumference; hemi, hemizygous; het, heterozygous; hom, homozygous; HPE, holoprosencephaly; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; mat, maternal; MCD, malformation of cortical development; NTD, neural tube defect; pat, paternal; PVPC, periventricular pseudocysts; SUA, single umbilical artery; VM, ventriculomegaly; VSD, ventricular septal defect; XLD, X‐linked dominant; XLR, X‐linked recessive.

The incidence of P/LP sequence variants was non‐significantly higher among the recurrent cases (i.e. cases with a previously affected pregnancy) compared with non‐recurrent cases (12/19 (63%) vs 26/67 (39%), χ‐square statistic = 3.56, P = 0.06). No difference in the incidence of P/LP sequence variants was noted between cases with an anomaly limited to the CNS and those with multisystem abnormalities (24/54 (44%) vs 14/32 (44%)). Of the cases with an ES diagnosis, 20/38 (53%) were inherited and carried a significant risk of recurrence (eight autosomal recessive (AR), five autosomal dominant (AD) and seven X‐linked cases). The remaining 18 cases had a de‐novo heterozygous variant in an AD or X‐linked gene.

To evaluate the detection rate in different clinical categories, cases were subcategorized (Table 3). The highest diagnostic yield was observed in cases categorized as having multisystem (14/32 (44%)) and complex brain (14/24 (58%)) anomalies. Cases with specific isolated brain anomalies were too few to draw definitive conclusions. As a group, cases with isolated severe CNS malformation had the lowest diagnostic yield (7/21 (33%)), as did cases with brain damage (3/9 (33%)).

Table 3.

Detection rate of pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES) among 114 cases with fetal central nervous system abnormality, according to clinical category

Clinical category CMA ES
Multisystem 5/40 (13) 14/32 (44)
Complex brain 5/32 (16) 14/24 (58)
MCD 0/11 (0)  3/9 (33)
Brain damage 0/14 (0)  3/9 (33)
Subependymal/arachnoid cysts 0/5 (0)   1/4 (25)
Midline anomaly 0/4 (0)   2/3 (67)
MBHB 1/6 (17)  0/3 (0) 
Neural tube defect 0/2 (0)   1/2 (50)
Total 11/114 (10) 38/86 (44)
Open in a new tab

Data are given as n/N (%).

MBHB, midbrain–hindbrain malformation; MCD, malformation of cortical development.

To assess whether the bioinformatics pipeline employed for SNV analysis (Franklin) can detect CNVs, we performed ES analysis in 10 of the 11 cases detected by CMA (Cases 9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 27, 47, 53, 63 and 71). In Case 54, there was insufficient DNA for ES analysis. Three additional cases had incidental, non‐causative CNVs (Cases 16, 86 and 107). The CNV size ranged from 335 kb to 19 080 kb, and all CNVs were called correctly by the bioinformatics analysis pipeline. Triploidy of Case 15 was not detected directly by the pipeline. However, the homozygous/heterozygous ratio, a quality control metric, was 0.34, far below the normal range (0.45–0.80), suggesting such an abnormality.

In summary, 96 cases had undergone ES analysis (86 CMA‐negative cases and 10 reanalyzed CMA‐positive cases). Thus, the combined detection rate of ES for both sequence variants and CNVs was 50%.

DISCUSSION

In the postnatal setting, ES has demonstrated an additional diagnostic yield for a variety of conditions of 25–45% beyond traditional methods. Multiple studies have also shown the efficacy of ES in the prenatal diagnosis of various fetal anomalies 5 , 6 , 7 , 12 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 . In a recent meta‐analysis, the diagnostic yield for a variety of fetal anomalies, regardless of the affected organ, was 9–47% 33 . A higher rate was noted for fetuses showing multiple malformations 33 . Several studies have reported that, in cases with a CNS anomaly, the added diagnostic yield is 3–34% 6 , 7 , 12 , 18 , 30 , 34 . Finally, there are only a handful of studies focusing specifically on CNS anomalies, with a diagnostic yield ranging from 19% to 50% 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 .

In our study, the added diagnostic yield of ES was 44%, with the highest yield observed in specific subcategories (44% in multisystem and 58% in complex brain anomalies). There was a non‐significant trend towards a higher incidence of monogenic etiology in cases with recurring brain anomalies compared with first‐time cases (63% vs 39%; P = 0.06). There was a significant risk of recurrence in 53% of cases that had an ES diagnosis. This information will be important for future reproductive choices. Several participating couples have already opted for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

In several cases with genetic etiology, we detected P/LP variants in AR genes that were in concordance with clinical manifestations. For example, Case 46 with POMT1 variant and Case 50 with POMGNT2 variant were suspected to have Walker–Warburg syndrome (OMIM 236670, 614830) (Table 2). However, in some cases, clinical manifestations did not correspond to the phenotype associated with the detected AR variants. For example, pathogenic variants in VRK1 cause pontocerebellar hypoplasia Type 1A (PCH1A, OMIM 607596), characterized postnatally by hypoplasia of the ventral pons and cerebellum and neuronal loss and gliosis in the brainstem and basal ganglia. However, prenatally, Case 5 with a homozygous VRK1 variant exhibited a dysplastic corpus callosum (CC), delayed sulcation and cerebellar hypoplasia. This highlights the fact that prenatal manifestations may differ and be more severe when compared with those described postnatally. There is a need to expand the HPO terminology to include accurate prenatal manifestations. Such efforts are currently being undertaken by the Fetal Sequencing Consortium 39 . Moreover, this suggests that accurate diagnoses cannot rely on imaging alone, and that sequencing information provides additional important insights.

As expected, of the 22 cases with an AD mode of inheritance, 17 (77%) cases were de novo. Nonetheless, consideration should be given to the five inherited AD cases. In two maternally inherited cases, tubulinopathy was detected. In Case 3, a TUBB3 (OMIM 614039) LP missense variant was detected in a fetus with cortical dysplasia and abnormal sulcation. In Case 62, a TUBB (OMIM 615771) LP missense variant was found in a fetus with CC hypoplasia, asymmetric hemispheres, ventriculomegaly, mega cisterna magna and colpocephaly. In Case 97, a de‐novo LP missense variant in the TUBA1A gene (OMIM 611603) was found in a fetus with cortical dysplasia, abnormal cortical gyration and brainstem abnormality. Pathogenic variants in the tubulin isotypes are associated with various types of complex cortical dysplasia with other brain malformations. Perturbation of the tubulins may be associated with a spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders with incomplete penetrance 40 . In Case 61, a maternally inherited DCC (OMIM 157600) loss‐of‐function variant was detected. On further examination, the otherwise unaffected mother was found to have mirror hand movements, a well‐described phenomenon associated with this gene 41 . The fetus, however, was found to have partial agenesis of the CC, which is another known consequence of DCC mutations 42 . In Case 73, a paternally inherited COL4A2 (OMIM 614483) deletion was associated with Grade IV intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) in the index fetus and in the fetus in a previously terminated pregnancy. The carrier father had cerebral palsy (CP), most likely as a consequence of in‐utero IVH. The father's niece, who also had CP, carried the same pathogenic variant. In Case 40, the fetus presented with Chiari Type‐II malformation secondary to a neural tube defect. ES analysis revealed a maternally inherited stop codon in the SCRIB gene (OMIM *607733). Variants in SCRIB and other planar cell polarity genes have been associated with neural tube defects in animals 43 and humans 44 , 45 . The healthy mother had no clinical signs of a neural tube defect. These cases highlight the fact that even pathogenic variants may have variable expression and incomplete penetrance and stress the importance of obtaining a full medical history and examining other family members.

In addition to the 44% diagnostic yield of P/LP variants, nine (10%) other cases had a VOUS with potential clinical relevance (Table S1). Such VOUSs may prove over time to be benign or unrelated to the clinical scenario owing to data‐sharing tools such as GeneMatcher 46 or the Franklin Users Community 47 .

Our study has some limitations. First, our series consists of highly selected cases that were severe enough to warrant termination of pregnancy. Thus, our conclusions may not apply to all brain anomalies. Second, the study was carried out at a referral center for prenatal CNS anomalies and, as such, may have had selection bias due to severe and/or recurrent cases being more likely to have genetic etiology. Third, conclusions regarding specific clinical subgroups are limited owing to a relatively small number of cases in each subcategory.

In conclusion, we have shown that, in fetuses with major CNS anomalies, ES has an additional diagnostic yield of 44% over the 10% provided by CMA. Because ES can also detect many CNVs and given the tight timeframe in pregnancy, we suggest that ES should be considered as a first‐tier test in the prenatal diagnosis of major CNS anomalies. Given the limited prenatal phenotype information, the additional prognostic information provided by ES is crucial for timely and evidence‐based decision‐making. Moreover, given that over half of the causative variants are inherited, their detection by ES provides valuable information regarding the risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and facilitates counseling regarding reproductive choices, such as prenatal diagnosis or PGT. Further studies are needed to assess whether ES alone could be used for reliable CNV detection.

Supporting information

Table S1 Cases with variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) detected by exome sequencing (ES) among 86 cases of fetal CNS anomalies

Click here for additional data file. (21.8KB, docx)

Table S2 Cases with negative exome sequencing (ES) results among 86 cases of fetal CNS anomalies

Click here for additional data file. (23.3KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the families and referring physicians, as well as our genetic counseling staff, including Dr Dalit Barel, Sharon Simchoni, Amit Wainstein, Shira Lotan Sultanik and Adi Botvinik. All genetic testing was performed as a clinical service under standard clinical consent. The study was approved by the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center Institutional Review Board (No. 0039‐15‐TLV). Retrospective collection of data from patient records has been granted a waiver of informed consent, as all clinical data contained in this report have been de‐identified. Y.Y. is an adviser for Genoox (https://www.genoox.com), developers of the Franklin pipeline used for bioinformatics analysis. He was also a Clinical Expert Panel member for Illumina (https://www.illumina.com), manufacturers of the NovaSeq 6000 used for exome sequencing in this study.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Best S, Wou K, Vora N, Van der Veyver IB, Wapner R, Chitty LS. Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing. Prenat Diagn 2018; 38: 10–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Callaway JL, Shaffer LG, Chitty LS, Rosenfeld JA, Crolla JA. The clinical utility of microarray technologies applied to prenatal cytogenetics in the presence of a normal conventional karyotype: a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 2013; 33: 1119–1123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Wapner RJ, Martin CL, Levy B, Ballif BC, Eng CM, Zachary JM, Savage M, Platt LD, Saltzman D, Grobman WA, Klugman S, Scholl T, Simpson JL, McCall K, Aggarwal VS, Bunke B, Nahum O, Patel A, Lamb AN, Thom EA, Beaudet AL, Ledbetter DH, Shaffer LG, Jackson L. Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2175–2184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Robson SC, Chitty LS, Morris S, Verhoef T, Ambler G, Wellesley DG, Graham R, Leader C, Fisher J, Crolla JA. Evaluation of Array Comparative genomic Hybridisation in prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomalies: a multicentre cohort study with cost analysis and assessment of patient, health professional and commissioner preferences for array comparative genomic hybridisation . Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017. Feb. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Jelin AC, Vora N. Whole Exome Sequencing: Applications in Prenatal Genetics. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2018; 45: 69–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY, Rinck G, Hamilton SJ, Quinlan‐Jones E, Prigmore E, Keelagher R, Best SK, Carey GK, Mellis R, Robart S, Berry IR, Chandler KE, Cilliers D, Cresswell L, Edwards SL, Gardiner C, Henderson A, Holden ST, Homfray T, Lester T, Lewis RA, Newbury‐Ecob R, Prescott K, Quarrell OW, Ramsden SC, Roberts E, Tapon D, Tooley MJ, Vasudevan PC, Weber AP, Wellesley DG, Westwood P, White H, Parker M, Williams D, Jenkins L, Scott RH, Kilby MD, Chitty LS, Hurles ME, Maher ER; Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes Consortium. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet 2019; 393: 747–757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, Stosic M, Wou K, Bier L, Spiegel E, Brennan K, Stong N, Jobanputra V, Ren Z, Zhu X, Mebane C, Nahum O, Wang Q, Kamalakaran S, Malone C, Anyane‐Yeboa K, Miller R, Levy B, Goldstein DB, Wapner RJ. Whole‐exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2019; 393: 758–767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Monaghan KG, Leach NT, Pekarek D, Prasad P, Rose NC, ACMG Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee. The use of fetal exome sequencing in prenatal diagnosis: a points to consider document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2020; 22: 675–680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Tolusso LK, Hazelton P, Wong B, Swarr DT. Beyond diagnostic yield: prenatal exome sequencing results in maternal, neonatal, and familial clinical management changes. Genet Med 2021; 13: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Rouleau C, Gasner A, Bigi N, Couture A, Perez MJ, Blanchet P, Faure JM, Rivier F, Boulot P, Laquerrière A, Encha‐Razavi F. Prevalence and timing of pregnancy termination for brain malformations. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011; 96: F360–F364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. de Wit MC, Srebniak MI, Govaerts LC, Van Opstal D, Galjaard RJ, Go AT. Additional value of prenatal genomic array testing in fetuses with isolated structural ultrasound abnormalities and a normal karyotype: a systematic review of the literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 43: 139–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Fu F, Li R, Li Y, Nie ZQ, Lei T, Wang D, Yang X, Han J, Pan M, Zhen L, Ou Y, Li J, Li FT, Jing X, Li D, Liao C. Whole exome sequencing as a diagnostic adjunct to clinical testing in fetuses with structural abnormalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51: 493–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Song T, Xu Y, Li Y, Jia L, Zheng J, Dang Y, Wan S, Zheng Y, Zhang J, Yang H. Detection of submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations by chromosomal microarray analysis for the prenatal diagnosis of central nervous system abnormalities. J Clin Lab Anal 2020; 34: e23434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Malinger G, Paladini D, Haratz KK, Monteagudo A, Pilu GL, Timor‐Tritsch IE. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): sonographic examination of the fetal central nervous system. Part 1: performance of screening examination and indications for targeted neurosonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 56: 476–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, Kantarci S, Kearney H, Patel A, Raca G, Ritter DI, South ST, Thorland EC, Pineda‐Alvarez D, Aradhya S, Martin CL. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy‐number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med 2020; 22: 245–257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi‐bin/hgGateway.
  • 17. http://dgv.tcag.ca/dgv/app/home.
  • 18. Reches A, Hiersch L, Simchoni S, Barel D, Greenberg R, Ben Sira L, Malinger G, Yaron Y. Whole‐exome sequencing in fetuses with central nervous system abnormalities. J Perinatol 2018; 38: 1301–1308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009; 25: 1754–1760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. McKenna A, Hanna M, Banks E, Sivachenko A, Cibulskis K, Kernytsky A, Garimella K, Altshuler D, Gabriel S, Daly M, DePristo MA. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next‐generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 2010; 20: 1297–1303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Garrison E, Marth G. Haplotype‐based variant detection from short‐read sequencing. http://arXiv.org/abs/1207.3907.
  • 22. https://help.genoox.com/en/articles/5365431‐rainbow‐cnv‐detection‐by‐franklin.
  • 23. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier‐Foster J, Grody WW, Hegde M, Lyon E, Spector E, Voelkerding K, Rehm HL; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. 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. Genetic Med 2015; 17: 405–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. https://hpo.jax.org/app/.
  • 25. https://www.socscistatistics.com.
  • 26. Lei T‐Y, Fu F, Li R, Wang D, Wang R‐Y, Jing X‐Y, Deng Q, Li Z‐Z, Liu Z‐Q, Yang X, Li D‐Z, Liao C. Whole‐exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2017; 32: 1665–1675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Leung GKC, Mak CCY, Fung JLF, Wong WHS, Tsang MHY, Yu MHC, Pei SLC, Yeung KS, Mok GTK, Lee CP, Hui APW, Tang MHY, Chan KYK, Liu APY, Yang W, Sham PC, Kan ASY, Chung BHY. Identifying the genetic causes for prenatally diagnosed structural congenital anomalies (SCAs) by whole‐exome sequencing (WES). BMC Med Genomics 2018; 11: 93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Mackie FL, Carss KJ, Hillman SC, Hurles ME, Kilby MD. Exome Sequencing in Fetuses with Structural Malformations. J Clin Med 2014; 3: 747–762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Normand EA, Alaimo JT, Van den Veyver IB. Exome and genome sequencing in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 213–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Normand EA, Braxton A, Nassef S, Ward PA, Vetrini F, He W, Patel V, Qu C, Westerfield LE, Stover S, Dharmadhikari AV, Muzny DM, Gibbs RA, Dai H, Meng L, Wang X, Xiao R, Liu P, Bi W, Xia F, Walkiewicz M, Van den Veyver IB, Eng CM, Yang Y. Clinical exome sequencing for fetuses with ultrasound abnormalities and a suspected Mendelian disorder. Genome Med 2018; 10: 74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Vora NL, Powell B, Brandt A, Strande N, Hardisty E, Gilmore K, Foreman AKM, Wilhelmsen K, Bizon C, Reilly J, Owen P, Powell CM, Skinner D, Rini C, Lyerly AD, Boggess KA, Weck K, Berg JS, Evans JP. Prenatal exome sequencing in anomalous fetuses: new opportunities and challenges. Genet Med 2017; 19: 1207–1216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Yates CL, Monaghan KG, Copenheaver D, Retterer K, Scuffins J, Kucera CR, Friedman B, Richard G, Juusola J. Whole‐exome sequencing on deceased fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: expanding our knowledge of genetic disease during fetal development. Genet Med 2017; 19: 1171–1178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Guadagnolo D, Mastromoro G, Di Palma F, Pizzuti A, Marchionni E. Prenatal Exome Sequencing: Background, Current Practice and Future Perspectives – A Systematic Review. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11: 224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Boissel S, Fallet‐Bianco C, Chitayat D, Kremer V, Nassif C, Rypens F, Delrue MA, Dal Soglio D, Oligny LL, Patey N, Flori E, Cloutier M, Dyment D, Campeau P, Karalis A, Nizard S, Fraser WD, Audibert F, Lemyre E, Rouleau GA, Hamdan FF, Kibar Z, Michaud JL. Genomic study of severe fetal anomalies and discovery of GREB1L mutations in renal agenesis. Genet Med 2018; 20: 745–753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Weitensteiner V, Zhang R, Bungenberg J, Marks M, Gehlen J, Ralser DJ, Hilger AC, Sharma A, Schumacher J, Gembruch U, Merz WM, Becker A, Altmuller J, Thiele H, Herrmann BG, Odermatt B, Ludwig M, Reutter H. Exome sequencing in syndromic brain malformations identifies novel mutations in ACTB, and SLC9A6, and suggests BAZ1A as a new candidate gene. Birth Defects Res 2018; 110: 587–597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Heide S, Spentchian M, Valence S, Buratti J, Mach C, Lejeune E, Olin V, Massimello M, Lehalle D, Mouthon L, Whalen S, Faudet A, Mignot C, Garel C, Blondiaux E, Lefebvre M, Quenum‐Miraillet G, Chantot‐Bastaraud S, Milh M, Bretelle F, Portes VD, Guibaud L, Putoux A, Tsatsaris V, Spodenkiewic M, Layet V, Dard R, Mandelbrot L, Guet A, Moutton S, Gorce M, Nizon M, Vincent M, Beneteau C, Rocchisanni MA, Benachi A, Saada J, Attie‐Bitach T, Guilbaud L, Maurice P, Friszer S, Jouannic JM, de Villemeur TB, Moutard ML, Keren B, Héron D. Prenatal exome sequencing in 65 fetuses with abnormality of the corpus callosum: contribution to further diagnostic delineation. Genet Med 2020; 22: 1887–1891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Li L, Fu F, Li R, Xiao W, Yu Q, Wang D, Jing X, Zhang Y, Yang X, Pan M, Liu Z, Liao C. Genetic tests aid in counseling of fetuses with cerebellar vermis defects. Prenat Diagn 2020; 40: 1228–1238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Tan H, Xie Y, Chen F, Chen M, Yu L, Chen D, Chen J. Novel and recurrent variants identified in fetuses with central nervous system abnormalities by trios‐medical exome sequencing. Clin Chim Acta 2020; 510: 599–604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. https://www.columbiaobgyn.org/fetal‐sequencing‐consortium.
  • 40. Breuss M, Heng JI‐T, Poirier K, Tian G, Jaglin XH, Qu Z, Braun A, Gstrein T, Ngo L, Haas M, Bahi‐Buisson N, Moutard M‐L, Passemard S, Verloes A, Gressens P, Xie Y, Robson KJH, Rani DS, Thangaraj K, Clausen T, Chelly J, Cowan NJ, Keays DA. Mutations in the β‐tubulin gene TUBB5 cause microcephaly with structural brain abnormalities. Cell Rep 2012; 2: 1554–1562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Srour M, Rivière J‐B, Pham JMT, Dubé M‐P, Girard S, Morin S, Dion PA, Asselin G, Rochefort D, Hince P, Diab S, Sharafaddinzadeh N, Chouinard S, Théoret H, Charron F, Rouleau GA. Mutations in DCC cause congenital mirror movements. Science 2010; 328: 592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Spencer‐Smith M, Knight JL, Lacaze E, Depienne C, Lockhart PJ, Richards LJ, Heron D, Leventer RJ, Robinson GA. Callosal agenesis and congenital mirror movements: outcomes associated with DCC mutations. Dev Med Child Neurol 2020; 62: 758–762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Murdoch JN, Henderson DJ, Doudney K, Gaston‐Massuet C, Phillips HM, Paternotte C, Arkell R, Stanier P, Copp AJ. Disruption of scribble (Scrb1) causes severe neural tube defects in the circletail mouse. Hum Mol Genet 2003; 12: 87–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Lei Y, Zhu H, Duhon C, Yang W, Ross ME, Shaw GM, Finnell RH. Mutations in planar cell polarity gene SCRIB are associated with spina bifida. PLoS One 2013; 8: e69262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Robinson A, Escuin S, Doudney K, Vekemans M, Stevenson RE, Greene ND, Copp AJ, Stanier P. Mutations in the planar cell polarity genes CELSR1 and SCRIB are associated with the severe neural tube defect craniorachischisis. Hum Mutat 2012; 33: 440–447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. https://genematcher.org.
  • 47. https://franklin.genoox.com.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1 Cases with variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) detected by exome sequencing (ES) among 86 cases of fetal CNS anomalies

Click here for additional data file. (21.8KB, docx)

Table S2 Cases with negative exome sequencing (ES) results among 86 cases of fetal CNS anomalies

Click here for additional data file. (23.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES