Strategies to minimize false positives and interpret novel microdeletions based on maternal copy-number variants in 87,000 noninvasive prenatal screens

• Published in: BMC medical genomics 2018-10, Vol.11 (1), p.90-13, Article 90
• Main Authors: Kaseniit, Kristjan Eerik, Hogan, Gregory J, D'Auria, Kevin M, Haverty, Carrie, Muzzey, Dale
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Aneuploidy; Chromosomes; Copy number variations; Copy-number variant; Deoxyribonucleic acid; DNA; DNA Copy Number Variations; Female; Fetuses; Gene Deletion; Genetic research; Genomes; Health aspects; Humans; Maternal Serum Screening Tests; Methods; Microdeletion; Noninvasive prenatal screening; Obstetrics; Pathogenicity; Plasma; Pregnancy; Prenatal diagnosis; Prenatal Diagnosis - methods; Risk groups; Variant interpretation; Whole Genome Sequencing
• ISSN: 1755-8794; 1755-8794
• DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0410-6

Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) of common aneuploidies using cell-free DNA from maternal plasma is part of routine prenatal care and is widely used in both high-risk and low-risk patient populations. High specificity is needed for clinically acceptable positive predictive values. Maternal copy-number variants (mCNVs) have been reported as a source of false-positive aneuploidy results that compromises specificity. We surveyed the mCNV landscape in 87,255 patients undergoing NIPS. We evaluated both previously reported and novel algorithmic strategies for mitigating the effects of mCNVs on the screen's specificity. Further, we analyzed the frequency, length, and positional distribution of CNVs in our large dataset to investigate the curation of novel fetal microdeletions, which can be identified by NIPS but are challenging to interpret clinically. mCNVs are common, with 65% of expecting mothers harboring an autosomal CNV spanning more than 200 kb, underscoring the need for robust NIPS analysis strategies. By analyzing empirical and simulated data, we found that general, outlier-robust strategies reduce the rate of mCNV-caused false positives but not as appreciably as algorithms specifically designed to account for mCNVs. We demonstrate that large-scale tabulation of CNVs identified via routine NIPS could be clinically useful: together with the gene density of a putative microdeletion region, we show that the region's relative tolerance to duplications versus deletions may aid the interpretation of microdeletion pathogenicity. Our study thoroughly investigates a common source of NIPS false positives and demonstrates how to bypass its corrupting effects. Our findings offer insight into the interpretation of NIPS results and inform the design of NIPS algorithms suitable for use in screening in the general obstetric population.