Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome by use of linked polymorphic markers

Fragile X syndrome is the most common cause of familial mental retardation. The most common mutation is expansion of a triplet (CGG)_n repeat in the 5′ untranslated region of the FMR1 gene on Xq27.3. The expansion is refractory to PCR due to preferential amplification of the smaller allele in heterozygous cells and the high GC content of the repeat and surrounding sequences. Direct detection of the normal parental alleles in preimplantation embryos has been used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) of this disorder. However, this approach is only suitable for approximately 63% of couples due to the heterozygosity of the repeat in the normal population. As an alternative we investigated the use of polymorphic markers flanking the mutation to track the normal and premutation carrying maternal chromosomes in preimplantation embryos. Using a panel of 11 polymorphisms, six (CA)_n repeats and five single nucleotide polymorphisms, diagnosis was developed for 90% of referred couples. Multiplex amplification of informative markers was tested in 300 single buccal cells from interested couples with efficiency and allele drop out (ADO) rates ranging from 69% to 96% and 6% to 18%, respectively. Use of this approach is accurate and applicable to a larger number of patients at risk of transmitting fragile X to their offspring. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Epidemiologic Analysis of Factors Associated with Local Disappearances of Native Ranid Frogs in Arizona

Abstract:  We examined factors that may independently or synergistically contribute to amphibian population declines. We used epidemiologic case–control methodology to sample and analyze a large database developed and maintained by the Arizona Game and Fish Department that describes historical and currently known ranid frog localities in Arizona, U.S.A. Sites with historical documentation of target ranid species ( n = 324) were evaluated to identify locations where frogs had disappeared during the study period (case sites) and locations where frog populations persisted (control sites). Between 1986 and 2003, 117 (36%) of the 324 sites became case sites, of which 105 were used in the analyses. An equal number of control sites were sampled to control for the effects of time. Risk factors, or predictor variables, were defined from environmental data summarized during site surveys and geographic information system data layers. We evaluated risk factors with univariate and multifactorial logistic-regression analyses to derive odds ratios (OR). Odds for local population disappearance were significantly related to 4 factors in the multifactorial model. Disappearance of frog populations increased with increasing elevation (OR = 2.7 for every 500 m, p < 0.01). Sites where disappearances occurred were 4.3 times more likely to have other nearby sites that also experienced disappearances (OR = 4.3, p < 0.01), whereas the odds of disappearance were 6.7 times less (OR = 0.15, p < 0.01) when there was a source population nearby. Sites with disappearances were 2.6 times more likely to have introduced crayfish than were control sites (OR = 2.6, p = 0.04). The identification of factors associated with frog disappearances increases understanding of declines occurring in natural populations and aids in conservation efforts to reestablish and protect native ranids by identifying and prioritizing implicated threats.     

Distribution of Zooplankton along the Longitudinal Profile of Two Disturbed Small Rivers of the Upper Volga Basin

The abundance and trophic structure of zooplankton along the longitudinal profile of two typical rivers in the Yaroslavl sector of the Volga region are determined by anthropogenic and zoogenic factors. The distribution of zooplankton under the influence of these factors is described by the concept of patch dynamics. The abundance of zooplankton reaches the highest values in the ameliorated upper reaches of rivers and in beaver ponds.     

Prenatal diagnosis of a 45,X male with a SRY-bearing chromosome 21

Male phenotype associated with a 45,X karyotype is an infrequent finding. We present a case diagnosed prenatally on amniocentesis performed for maternal age. The male phenotype was associated with a translocation of a distal part of Yp including the pseudoautosomal SHOX gene and SRY gene on the short arm of a chromosome 21. By DNA analysis we could show that the X chromosome was of maternal origin and that the breakpoint was in interval 3 of the Y chromosome. Mechanisms and genetic counselling are discussed based on a review of published cases of 45,X and XX males. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prenatal diagnosis of Apert syndrome: report of two cases

Two de novo cases with Apert Syndrome detected prenatally are presented herein. In the first, fetal ultrasound findings of syndactyly of the hands, craniosynostosis and proptosis resulted in a prenatal diagnosis in the nineteenth week of gestation. This is the earliest prenatal diagnosis of this syndrome in a not-at-risk case. Following counseling, this pregnancy was terminated and subsequent pathological examination and DNA analysis confirmed the diagnosis of Apert Syndrome and coarctation of the aorta. In the second case, fetal ultrasound at 21 weeks' gestation revealed a hypoplastic left heart and clover-leaf skull. Following counseling, this pregnancy was also terminated. Further examination of the fetus and DNA analysis led to a diagnosis of Apert Syndrome. These cases emphasize the need to complete a thorough fetal ultrasound in cases with potentially lethal cardiac abnormality and the importance of incorporating a fetal pathologist, as well as a medical geneticist, in the investigations performed after delivery or pregnancy termination when a fetal abnormality is detected on ultrasound. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Total quality practitioner. Improving environmental process

Quick fix. Putting out firs. Do it over. Fix it again. Bottlenecks. Come back to it later. Out of stock. Back order. Not what we ordered. Is that the best you can do? It's the contractor's fault. Not within specs. Defective. Nobody's perfect. Lost in the system. Over budget. Delayed. Late penalities. Fines.