宏观单合子雄激素/双亲嵌合体:分子表征和临床意义

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
H. Usui, N. Nakamura, E. Katayama, A. Sato, T. Mukouyama, N. Sakai, S. Otsuka, R. Okuya, Y. Habu, K. Nishikimi, S. Tate, J. Ikeda, K. Koga
{"title":"宏观单合子雄激素/双亲嵌合体:分子表征和临床意义","authors":"H. Usui,&nbsp;N. Nakamura,&nbsp;E. Katayama,&nbsp;A. Sato,&nbsp;T. Mukouyama,&nbsp;N. Sakai,&nbsp;S. Otsuka,&nbsp;R. Okuya,&nbsp;Y. Habu,&nbsp;K. Nishikimi,&nbsp;S. Tate,&nbsp;J. Ikeda,&nbsp;K. Koga","doi":"10.1002/gcc.70078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Hydatidiform moles represent abnormal pregnancies characterized by trophoblastic hyperproliferation. However, accurate diagnosis of partial hydatidiform moles (PHM) remains challenging. We present a rare case of a monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic in a 26-year-old primigravida. The patient was referred to our institution for a suspected PHM, and ultrasonography revealed a nonviable embryo-like structure alongside villous formations with focal cystic changes. Pathological examination of the evacuated tissue revealed the coexistence of normal and hydropic villi. Histological assessment with p57KIP2 immunohistochemistry initially suggested PHM; however, some cytotrophoblasts and villous stromal cells were negative for p57KIP2 immunoreactivity. Therefore, we conducted short tandem repeat analysis separately for normal villous tissue and cystic villous lesions to elucidate the genetic origin of this unusual presentation. The normal villous portion exhibited biparental diploidy, whereas the cystic villous portion exhibited androgenetic monospermic patterns. Comparisons across all 16 loci revealed concordance between the paternal alleles of biparental diploid villi and the androgenic molar alleles, indicating a single sperm origin. SNP array analysis with B allele frequency plotting confirmed these findings at the whole-genome level; normal villi showed biparental diploid patterns, whereas cystic villi displayed uniparental disomic patterns. These results demonstrate that both components originated from a monozygotic conception rather than from dizygotic twinning. Therefore, we propose a clinical category based on the sequelae of endoduplication and the formation of a tripolar spindle apparatus through the first meiotic division, encompassing macroscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, twin pregnancy with a hydatidiform mole, microscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, and confined placental mosaicism. Given the presence of androgenetic elements and our institutional experience with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia development in a similar case, we recommend that such cases be managed according to complete hydatidiform mole surveillance protocols. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges posed by monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic mechanisms and emphasizes the importance of molecular genetic analysis for the accurate diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of atypical hydatidiform moles.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12700,"journal":{"name":"Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer","volume":"64 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Macroscopic Monozygotic Androgenetic/Biparental Mosaicism: Molecular Characterization and Clinical Implications\",\"authors\":\"H. Usui,&nbsp;N. Nakamura,&nbsp;E. Katayama,&nbsp;A. Sato,&nbsp;T. Mukouyama,&nbsp;N. Sakai,&nbsp;S. Otsuka,&nbsp;R. Okuya,&nbsp;Y. Habu,&nbsp;K. Nishikimi,&nbsp;S. Tate,&nbsp;J. Ikeda,&nbsp;K. Koga\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gcc.70078\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Hydatidiform moles represent abnormal pregnancies characterized by trophoblastic hyperproliferation. However, accurate diagnosis of partial hydatidiform moles (PHM) remains challenging. We present a rare case of a monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic in a 26-year-old primigravida. The patient was referred to our institution for a suspected PHM, and ultrasonography revealed a nonviable embryo-like structure alongside villous formations with focal cystic changes. Pathological examination of the evacuated tissue revealed the coexistence of normal and hydropic villi. Histological assessment with p57KIP2 immunohistochemistry initially suggested PHM; however, some cytotrophoblasts and villous stromal cells were negative for p57KIP2 immunoreactivity. Therefore, we conducted short tandem repeat analysis separately for normal villous tissue and cystic villous lesions to elucidate the genetic origin of this unusual presentation. The normal villous portion exhibited biparental diploidy, whereas the cystic villous portion exhibited androgenetic monospermic patterns. Comparisons across all 16 loci revealed concordance between the paternal alleles of biparental diploid villi and the androgenic molar alleles, indicating a single sperm origin. SNP array analysis with B allele frequency plotting confirmed these findings at the whole-genome level; normal villi showed biparental diploid patterns, whereas cystic villi displayed uniparental disomic patterns. These results demonstrate that both components originated from a monozygotic conception rather than from dizygotic twinning. Therefore, we propose a clinical category based on the sequelae of endoduplication and the formation of a tripolar spindle apparatus through the first meiotic division, encompassing macroscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, twin pregnancy with a hydatidiform mole, microscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, and confined placental mosaicism. Given the presence of androgenetic elements and our institutional experience with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia development in a similar case, we recommend that such cases be managed according to complete hydatidiform mole surveillance protocols. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges posed by monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic mechanisms and emphasizes the importance of molecular genetic analysis for the accurate diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of atypical hydatidiform moles.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer\",\"volume\":\"64 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gcc.70078\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gcc.70078","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

葡萄胎代表以滋养细胞增生为特征的异常妊娠。然而,准确诊断部分葡萄胎(PHM)仍然具有挑战性。我们报告一例罕见的单合子雄激素/双亲嵌合在一个26岁的原鸟。患者因疑似PHM而被转介到我们的机构,超声检查显示不可存活的胚胎样结构以及绒毛形成和局灶性囊性改变。病理检查显示正常绒毛和水绒毛共存。p57KIP2免疫组化初步提示PHM;而部分细胞滋养层细胞和绒毛间质细胞p57KIP2免疫反应性为阴性。因此,我们分别对正常绒毛组织和囊性绒毛病变进行了短串联重复分析,以阐明这种不寻常表现的遗传起源。正常绒毛部分表现为双亲本二倍体,而囊性绒毛部分表现为雄激素单精子模式。所有16个位点的比较结果显示,双亲本二倍体绒毛父本等位基因与雄激素磨牙等位基因一致,表明精子来源单一。SNP阵列分析与B等位基因频率图在全基因组水平上证实了这些发现;正常绒毛表现为双亲二倍体,而囊绒毛表现为双亲二体。这些结果表明,这两种成分都来自同卵受精,而不是异卵双胞胎。因此,我们提出了一个基于内复制和通过第一次减数分裂形成三极纺锤体的后果的临床分类,包括宏观的雄激素发生/双亲嵌合体,双胎妊娠伴有包子状痣,微观的雄激素发生/双亲嵌合体和限制性胎盘嵌合体。鉴于雄激素因素的存在和我们在类似病例中妊娠滋养细胞瘤发展的机构经验,我们建议根据完整的葡萄胎监测方案来处理此类病例。本病例强调了单合子雄激素/双亲本嵌合机制所带来的诊断挑战,并强调了分子遗传学分析对非典型包虫体痣的准确诊断和适当临床管理的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Macroscopic Monozygotic Androgenetic/Biparental Mosaicism: Molecular Characterization and Clinical Implications

Hydatidiform moles represent abnormal pregnancies characterized by trophoblastic hyperproliferation. However, accurate diagnosis of partial hydatidiform moles (PHM) remains challenging. We present a rare case of a monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic in a 26-year-old primigravida. The patient was referred to our institution for a suspected PHM, and ultrasonography revealed a nonviable embryo-like structure alongside villous formations with focal cystic changes. Pathological examination of the evacuated tissue revealed the coexistence of normal and hydropic villi. Histological assessment with p57KIP2 immunohistochemistry initially suggested PHM; however, some cytotrophoblasts and villous stromal cells were negative for p57KIP2 immunoreactivity. Therefore, we conducted short tandem repeat analysis separately for normal villous tissue and cystic villous lesions to elucidate the genetic origin of this unusual presentation. The normal villous portion exhibited biparental diploidy, whereas the cystic villous portion exhibited androgenetic monospermic patterns. Comparisons across all 16 loci revealed concordance between the paternal alleles of biparental diploid villi and the androgenic molar alleles, indicating a single sperm origin. SNP array analysis with B allele frequency plotting confirmed these findings at the whole-genome level; normal villi showed biparental diploid patterns, whereas cystic villi displayed uniparental disomic patterns. These results demonstrate that both components originated from a monozygotic conception rather than from dizygotic twinning. Therefore, we propose a clinical category based on the sequelae of endoduplication and the formation of a tripolar spindle apparatus through the first meiotic division, encompassing macroscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, twin pregnancy with a hydatidiform mole, microscopic androgenetic/biparental mosaicism, and confined placental mosaicism. Given the presence of androgenetic elements and our institutional experience with gestational trophoblastic neoplasia development in a similar case, we recommend that such cases be managed according to complete hydatidiform mole surveillance protocols. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges posed by monozygotic androgenetic/biparental mosaic mechanisms and emphasizes the importance of molecular genetic analysis for the accurate diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of atypical hydatidiform moles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer
Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
8.10%
发文量
94
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer will offer rapid publication of original full-length research articles, perspectives, reviews and letters to the editors on genetic analysis as related to the study of neoplasia. The main scope of the journal is to communicate new insights into the etiology and/or pathogenesis of neoplasia, as well as molecular and cellular findings of relevance for the management of cancer patients. While preference will be given to research utilizing analytical and functional approaches, descriptive studies and case reports will also be welcomed when they offer insights regarding basic biological mechanisms or the clinical management of neoplastic disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信