Volume 26, Issue 3 (5-2019)
RJMS 2019, 26(3): 31-39 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
keshaKeshavarzivarzi F, Karimi Behbahani L. Cytogenetic findings in couples with fertility problems. RJMS 2019; 26 (3) :31-39
URL: http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-5267-en.html
URL: http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-5267-en.html
Department of Biology, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran , fkeshavarzi@iausdj.ac.ir
Abstract: (3081 Views)
Background: Chromosomal aberrations can be one of the causes of fertility problems, including infertility or frequent abortions. Identification of chromosomal aberrations by clinical diagnostic techniques has been primarily performed through standard karyotyping. In this screening, the prevalence of these disorders were checking in individuals with fertility problems from west population of Iran.
Methods: A prospective cytogenetic study was conducted on 200 cases (124 women (28.1±5) and 76(30.7±5) men with fertility problems and age average 30.81±5 for chromosomal abnormalities using routine karyotyping.
Results: Types of chromosomal anomalies were observed in 62(31%) individuals (35 and 27 patients with RPL and infertility, respectively). Among the chromosomal aberrations, the prevalence of translocations, deletions, inversions, duplications and insertions were 40.32% (25), 22.6% (14), 17.74% (11), 9.7% (6) and 9.7% (6), respectively. The most abnormal disorder was belonging to chromosomal displacement or translocation (40.32%).
Conclusion: The high prevalence of chromosomal abnormality (31%) in population studied was shown genetic counseling should be providing to the family members to explain the recurrence risk as well as the need for prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies and management of patients by collected data bank.
Methods: A prospective cytogenetic study was conducted on 200 cases (124 women (28.1±5) and 76(30.7±5) men with fertility problems and age average 30.81±5 for chromosomal abnormalities using routine karyotyping.
Results: Types of chromosomal anomalies were observed in 62(31%) individuals (35 and 27 patients with RPL and infertility, respectively). Among the chromosomal aberrations, the prevalence of translocations, deletions, inversions, duplications and insertions were 40.32% (25), 22.6% (14), 17.74% (11), 9.7% (6) and 9.7% (6), respectively. The most abnormal disorder was belonging to chromosomal displacement or translocation (40.32%).
Conclusion: The high prevalence of chromosomal abnormality (31%) in population studied was shown genetic counseling should be providing to the family members to explain the recurrence risk as well as the need for prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies and management of patients by collected data bank.
References
1. 1. Khandekar S, Dive A, Munde P. Chromosomal abnormalities -a review. Centr India J Dent Sci; 2013.4(1):35-40.
2. 2. van Karnebeek CD, Jansweijer MC, Leenders AG, Offringa M, Hennekam RC. Diagnostic investigations in individuals with mental retardation: a systematic literature review of their usefulness. Eur J Hum Genet 2005; 13(1): 6-25.
3. 3. Nasiri F, Mahjoubi F, Manouchehry F, Razazian F, Mortezapour F, Rahnama M. Cytogenetic findings in mentally retarded Iranian patients. Balkan J Med Genet; 2012.15(2): 29-34.
4. 4. Khaniani MS, Kalitsis P, Burgess T, Slater HR. An improved diagnostic PCR assay for identification of cryptic heterozygosity for CGG triplet repeat alleles in the fragile X gene (FMR1). Mol Cytogenet; 2008.1:5.
5. 5. Celep F, Sonmez FM, Karaguzel A. Chromosomal abnormalities in 457 Turkish patients with MCA/MR. Turk J Pediatr; 2006.48(2):130-4.
6. 6. Dave U, Shetty D. Chromosomal abnormalities in mental retardation: Indian experience. Int J Hum Gene; 2010.10(1-3):21-32.
7. Ghasemi N, Kalantar SM, Aflatoonian A, Tayebi N. Subfertile couples with inv (9) (p11q13): Report of two cases. Mid East Fertil Soc J; 2007.12(1):63-5.
8. 7. Dana M, Stoian V. Association of pericentric inversion of chromosome 9 and infertility in Romanian population. Maedica (Buchar); 2012.7(1):25-9.
9. 8. Kriek M, White SJ, Bouma MC, Dauwerse HG, Hansson KB, Nijhuis JV, et al. Genomic imbalances in mental retardation. J Med Genet; 2004.41(4):249-55.
10. 9. Ghazaey S, Mirzaei F, Ahadian M, Keifi F, Semiramis T, Abbaszadegan MR. Pattern of chromosomal aberrations in patients from north East Iran. Cell J; 2013.15(3):258-65.
11. 10. Balkan M, Akbas H, Isi H, Oral D, Turkyilmaz A, Kalkanli S, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of 4216 patients referred for suspected chromosomal abnormalities in Southeast Turkey. Genet Mol Res; 2010.9(2):1094-103.
12. 11. Xu J, Chen Z. Advances in molecular cytogenetics for the evaluation of mental retardation. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet; 2003.117C(1):15-24.
14. 12. Wells D. Clinical utilisation of a rapid low-pass whole genome sequencing technique for the diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos prior to implantation. J Medl Genet; 2014.51(8):553-562.
15. 13. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril; 2010.94(5):1700-1706.
16. 14. Fragouli E. The cytogenetics of polar bodies: insights into female meiosis and the diagnosis of aneuploidy. Mol Hum Reprod; 2011.17(5):286-295.
17. 15. Stephenson MD, Sierra S. Reproductive outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement. Hum Reprod; 2006.21(4):1076-82.
18. 16. Lledó B, Ortiz JA, Morales R. The paternal effect of chromosome translocation carriers observed from meiotic segregation in embryos. Hum Report; 2010.25(7):1843-8.
19. 17. Feichtinger M. Increasing live birth rate by preimplantation genetic screening of pooled polar bodies using array comparative genomic hybridization. PloS One; 2015. 0(5): e0128317.
20. 18. Handyside A. Karyomapping: a universal method for genome crossovers between parental haplotypes wide analysis of genetic disease based on mapping. J Med Genet; 2010.47(10): 651-8.
21. 19. Lebedev IN, Ostroverkhova NV. Molecular cytogenetic characteristics of chromosome imbalance in cells of spontaneous human abortion fetuses with low proliferative activity in vitro. Genetika; 2003.39(8):1111-22.
22. 20. Serra FV. Improved accuracy of hysteroembryoscopic biopsies for karyotyping early missed abortions. Fertil Stril. 2003.80(5):1260-4.
23. 21. Hogge WA, Byrnes AL, Lanasa MC, Surti U. The clinical use of karyotyping spontaneous abortions. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2003.189(2):397-400.
24. 22. Al hossain M, Al-Nuaim L, Abu Talib Z, Zaki OK. Cytogenetic study in cases with recurrent abortion in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med; 2000.20(3-4):233-6.
25. 23. Oliveira Gonçalves R, Vilas Boas Santos W, Sarno M, Antonio Veloso B, Souza Gonçalves M, Lucia Nunes Costa O. Chromosomal abnormalities in couples with recurrent first trimester abortions, Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet; 2014.36(3):113-7.
26. 24. Ghazaey S, Keify F. Chromosomal Analysis of Couples with Repeated Spontaneous Abortions in Northeastern Iran.
27. Royan Inst Int J Fertil Steril; 2015.9(1):47-54.
28. 25. Dubey S, Chowdhury MR, Prahlad B. Cytogenetic causes for recurrent spontaneous abortions –an experience of 742 couples (1484 cases). India J Hum Genet; 2005.11(2).
29. 26. Rajasekhar M, Gopinath PM, Sreelakshmi K, Satyamoorthy K. A Cytogenetic Study of Couples with Miscarriages: An Experience from Manipal Referral Centre. Int J Hum Genet; 2013.13(2):93-97.
30. 27. Bick RL, Madden J, Heller KB, Toofanian A. Impact and implications of chromosomal abnormalities relationship to spontaneous Abortion. Medscape Women Health; 1998.3(3): 2.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
