Genotype Identification of Complete Hydatidiform Moles without a Maternal Component: Attempts at a Novel 26-plex STR System

Abstract

Objective

Current autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) assays can analyze the zygotic composition by comparing the allelic genes at each locus of complete hydatidiform moles (CHM), with a maternal genotype serving as an essential reference for comparative analysis. However, their application in pathology represents a challenge because of deficiency or contamination of maternal-origin tissues. This study aimed to develop a novel STR genotyping method for identifying CHM genotypes without a maternal component.

Methods

Samples with the pathologic description of molar pregnancy were collected. Routine hematoxylin–eosin (HE) staining and p57 immunohistochemistry staining were conducted in accordance with standard guidelines. A novel 26-plex system was explored to classify CHM and diploid pregnancies. The system combined 22 STRs on chromosomes 21/18/13/X, 3 sex loci, and 1 quality control marker (TAF9L), enabling molecular diagnosis in the absence of maternal tissue. At last, traditional DNA typing based on villi and decidua (maternal component) of each case was used for result consistency analysis.

Results

CHM and nonmolar abortus could not be distinguished by the basic HE staining with no fetal evidence or other prominent features. DNA typing was successfully processed for all cases according to the novel 26-plex and traditional system. CHM (46XX) diagnosis required single A-STR/X-STR peaks and absent Y-chromosome markers, excluding chromosomal abnormalities via TAF9L analysis. When the villous tissue analysis revealed single peaks at X-STR/SRY loci, a 1:1 amelogenin ratio, and a 2:1 TAF9L peak ratio, these results overlapped with those of 46XY hydropic abortus or CHM. Notably, p57 immunohistochemical staining resolved the ambiguity. Consistency with traditional DNA genotyping confirmed system accuracy. This multiplex assay enhanced reliability in mole diagnosis, supporting clinical differentiation and genetic counseling.

Conclusion

This study presents a rapid and cost-effective assay for the genotypic identification of CHM without the need for a maternal component. The method combined the characteristics of STR loci distributed across different chromosomes and developed the clinic application of forensic biomarkers.

Keywords

Forensic biomarkers / Short tandem repeat / Complete hydatidiform moles / Genotype / TAF9L

References

[1] ElstonCW. The pathology of trophoblastic disease: current status. Clin Obstet Gynecol., 1984, 2: 135-152

[2] WellsM. The pathology of gestational trophoblastic disease: recent advances. Pathology., 2007, 39(1): 88-96.

[3] FisherRA, PoveyS, JeffreysAJ, et al.. Frequency of heterozygous complete hydatidiform moles, estimated by locus-specific minisatellite and Y chromosome-specific probes. Hum Genet., 1989, 82(3): 259-263.

[4] KajiiT, OhamaK. Androgenetic origin of hydatidiform mole. Nature., 1977, 268(5621): 633-634.

[5] LawlerSD, FisherRA, PickthallVJ, et al.. Genetic studies on hydatidiform moles. I. The origin of partial moles. Cancer Genet Cytogenet., 1982, 5(4): 309-320.

[6] BagshaweKD, LawlerSD, ParadinasLI, et al.. Gestational trophoblastic tumors following initial diagnosis of partial hydatidiform mole. Lancet., 1990, 335(8697): 1074-1076.

[7] BerkowitzRS, GoldsteinDP. Clinical practice. Molar pregnancy. N Engl J Med., 2009, 360(16): 1639-1645.

[8] FeltmateCM, GrowdonWB, WolfbergAJ, et al.. Clinical characteristics of persistent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia after partial hydatidiform molar pregnancy. J Reprod Med., 2006, 51(11): 902-906

[9] GenestD. Partial hydatidiform mole: clinicopathological features, differential diagnosis, ploidy and molecular studies, and gold standards for diagnosis. Int J Gynecol Pathol., 2001, 20(4): 315-322.

[10] NganHYS, SecklMJ, BerkowitzRS, et al.. Diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease: 2021 update. Int J Gynecol Obstet., 2021, 155(Suppl 1): 86-93.

[11] GergelyL, GbelcováH, RepiskáV, et al.. Importance of the genetics in the diagnostics of hydatidiform mole. Ceska Gynekol., 2020, 85(4): 275-281

[12] ZhengXZ, HuiP, ChangB, et al.. STR DNA genotyping of hydatidiform moles in South China. Int J Clin Exp Pathol., 2014, 7(8): 4704-4719

[13] LipataF, ParkashV, TalmorM, et al.. Precise DNA genotyping diagnosis of hydatidiform mole. Obstet Gynecol., 2010, 115(4): 784-794.

[14] SunL, FanZ, LongJ, et al.. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy for chromosomes 21, 18, 13, X, and Y using segmental duplication quantitative fluorescent PCR (SD-QF-PCR). Gene., 2017, 627: 72-78.

[15] LeGalloRD, StelowEB, RamirezNC, et al.. Diagnosis of hydatidiform moles using p57 immunohistochemistry and HER2 fluorescent in situ hybridization. Am J Clin Pathol., 2008, 129(5): 749-755.

[16] JosephNM, PinedaC, RabbanJT. DNA Genotyping of Nonmolar Donor Egg Pregnancies with Abnormal Villous Morphology: Allele Zygosity Patterns Prevent Misinterpretation as Complete Hydatidiform Mole. Int J Gynecol Pathol., 2018, 37(2): 191-197.

[17] LiJ, LuoH, SongF, et al.. Validation of the Microreader™ 23 sp ID system: A new STR 23-plex system for forensic application. Forensic Sci Int Genet., 2017, 27: 67-73.

[18] MuthuswamyS, BhallaP, AgarwalS, et al.. Performance of QF-PCR in targeted prenatal aneuploidy diagnosis: Indian scenario. Gene., 2015, 562(1): 55-61.

[19] NicoliniU, LalattaF, NatacciF, et al.. The introduction of QF-PCR in prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies: time for reconsideration. Hum Reprod Update., 2004, 10(6): 541-548.

[20] XieM, LiJ, HuH, et al.. Development and validation of a novel 26-plex system for prenatal diagnosis with forensic markers. Int J Legal Med., 2022, 136(2): 527-537.

[21] KayserM, BranickiW, ParsonW, et al.. Recent advances in Forensic DNA Phenotyping of appearance, ancestry and age. Forensic Sci Int Genet., 2023, 65102870.

[22] PontesL, SousaJC, MedeirosR. SNPs and STRs in forensic medicine. A strategy for kinship evaluation. Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol., 2017, 67(3): 226-240

[23] LuoHB, YeY, WangYY, et al.. Characteristics of eight X-STR loci for forensic purposes in the Chinese population. Int J Legal Med., 2011, 125(1): 127-131.

[24] LuB, MaY, ShaoY, et al.. Twin pregnancy with complete hydatidiform mole and coexisting fetus: A report of 15 cases with a clinicopathological analysis and DNA genotyping. Pathol Res Pract., 2022, 238154116.

[25] WenkRE, PetersonJ, BairdM. A molecular classification of moles and its use in filiation tests. J Forensic Sci., 2022, 67(1): 328-331.

[26] WenkRE, BairdM, PetersonJ, et al.. Parentage of Hydatidiform Moles. J Forensic Sci., 2020, 65(4): 1346-1349.

[27] MurphyKM, DescipioC, WagenfuehrJ, et al.. Tetraploid partial hydatidiform mole: a case report and review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Pathol., 2012, 31(1): 73-79.

[28] MengY, YangX, YinH. Application of short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping in partial hydatidiform mole. Am J Transl Res., 2023, 15(5): 3731-3738

[29] HeinrichM, MüllerM, RandS, et al.. Allelic drop-out in the STR system ACTBP2 (SE33) as a result of mutations in the primer binding region. Int J Legal Med., 2004, 118(6): 361-363.

Funding

Key Research and Development Projects of Shaanxi Province(S2024-YF-YB-SF-1359)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Huazhong University of Science and Technology