RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Embryonic lethal genetic variants and chromosomally normal pregnancy loss JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.10.16.20214163 DO 10.1101/2020.10.16.20214163 A1 Jennie Kline A1 Badri N. Vardarajan A1 Avinash Avabhyankar A1 Sonja Kytömaa A1 Bruce Levin A1 Nara Sobreira A1 Andrew Tang A1 Amanda Thomas-Wilson A1 Ruiwei Zhang A1 Vaidehi Jobanputra YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/23/2020.10.16.20214163.abstract AB STUDY QUESTION Are rare genetic variants in the conceptus associated with chromosomally normal pregnancy loss?SUMMARY ANSWER The proportion of probands with at least one rare variant is increased in chromosomally normal loss conceptuses compared with controls.WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN Among non-consanguineous families, one study of seven chromosomally normal losses to four couples with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and a case report of a family with RPL of which one was known to be chromosomally normal identify compound heterozygote variants in three different genes as possibly causal. Among consanguineous families, RPL of chromosomally normal pregnancies with non-immune hydrops fetalis (NIHF) has been attributed to recessive variants in genes previously implicated for NIHF and new candidate genes.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The starting sample was 52 chromosomally normal losses to 50 women, identified in 2003-2005 as part of a cohort study on trisomy and ovarian aging. The analytic sample comprises 19 conceptus-parent trios with DNA from 17 biologic parents (cases). The control group derives from the National Institutes of Mental Health’s National Database for Autism Research (NDAR). It comprises 547 trios of unaffected siblings of autism cases and their parents.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We use exome sequencing to identify rare variants in the coding region of the genome. We defined variant rarity in two ways: ultra-rare (absent in gnomAD) and rare (heterozygote <10−3 in gnomAD). For autosomal recessives, we further required that the variant was absent as a homozygote in gnomAD. We compare the rates of rare predicted damaging variants (loss of function and missense – damaging) and the proportions of probands with at least one such variant in cases versus controls. Secondarily, 1) we repeat the analysis limiting it to variants in genes considered causal in fetal anomalies and 2) we compare the proportions of cases and controls with damaging variants in genes which we classified as possibly embryonic lethal based on a review which was blinded to case-control status.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The rates of ultra-rare damaging variants (all de novo) are 0.21 and 0.17 in case and control probands, respectively. The corresponding rates for rare potentially pathogenic de novo variants are 0.37 and 0.24, respectively; for autosomal recessive variants they 0.11 and 0.03. The proportions of probands with at least one rare potentially damaging variant were 36.8% among cases and 22.9% among controls (odds ratio (OR) = 2.0, 95% CI 0.9, 3.0). Secondary analyses show no damaging variants in fetal anomaly genes among case probands; the proportion with variants in possibly embryonic lethal genes was increased in case probands (OR=14.5, 95% CI 3.4, 61.1). Cases had variants in possibly embryonic lethal genes BAZ1A, FBN2 and TIMP2. Post hoc review of these cases suggests that CDH5 may also be an embryonic lethal gene.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The number of case trios (n=19) limits the precision of our point estimates. We observe a moderate association between rare damaging variants and chromosomally normal loss with a confidence interval that includes unity. A larger sample is needed to estimate the magnitude of the association with precision and to identify the relevant biological pathways.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our data add to a very small literature on this topic. They suggest rare genetic variants in the conceptus may be a cause of chromosomally normal loss.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS(S) Exome sequencing of case trios was performed by Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics through National Human Genome Research Institute grant 5U54HG006542.Data used in the preparation of this manuscript were obtained from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Data Archive (NDA). NDA is a collaborative informatics system created by the National Institutes of Health to provide a national resource to support and accelerate research in mental health. Dataset identifier(s): src_subject_id. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or of the Submitters submitting original data to NDA.No author has a competing interest.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementSTUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS(S): Exome sequencing of case trios was performed by Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics through National Human Genome Research Institute grant 5U54HG006542. Data used in the preparation of this manuscript were obtained from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Data Archive (NDA). NDA is a collaborative informatics system created by the National Institutes of Health to provide a national resource to support and accelerate research in mental health. Dataset identifier(s): src_subject_id. This manuscript reflects the views of the authors and may not reflect the opinions or views of the NIH or of the Submitters submitting original data to NDA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We acknowledge the late Dorothy Warburton who conceived this study with us. We acknowledge Judy Chih-Yu and Vanessa Felice who prepared the DNA samples, Amelia Zuver and Troy Layouni who set up the fieldwork databases, and Sarah Robbins who collaborated in the planning stage of the analysis. We thank Kathy Hardy for her insightful feedback on this paper. We thank the women and men who participated in this research. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The project was reviewed and first approved on 12/17/2007 and the most recent modification on 03/05/2020 by the Columbia University Medical Center, Institutional Review Board (IRB-AAAC9776)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll raw and processed de-identified data will be shared upon request, as per the consent specified in our IRB approval.