The aim of this study was to develop an improved technique for DNA extraction from 1 ml of uncultured AF from patients with a gestational age less than 16 weeks and to allow the use of array-CGH without DNA amplification. The DNA extraction protocol was tested in a series of 90 samples including 41 of uncultured AF at less than 16 weeks of gestation. Statistical analyses were performed using linear regression. To evaluate the sensitivity and the specificity of array-CGH on 1 ml of uncultured AF, five samples with an abnormal karyotype (three with aneuploidy, two with structural abnormalities) and five with a normal karyotype were studied. This protocol was reproducible and we were able to show a great improvement with higher yield of DNA obtained from all patients, including those with a gestational age less than 16 weeks (p = 0.003). All chromosomal abnormalities were detected and characterized by array-CGH and normal samples showed normal profiles. This new DNA extraction protocol associated with array-CGH analysis could be used in prenatal testing even when gestational age is less than 16 weeks, especially in cases with abnormal ultrasound findings.
Citation: Mosca-Boidron A-L, Faivre L, Aho S, Marle N, Truntzer C, Rousseau T, et al. (2013) An Improved Method to Extract DNA from 1 ml of Uncultured Amniotic Fluid from Patients at Less than 16 Weeks’ Gestation. PLoS ONE 8(4): e59956. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059956
Editor: Giuseppe Novelli, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Italy
Received: November 8, 2012; Accepted: February 20, 2013; Published: April 2, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Mosca-Boidron et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The project was financial by a grant from the University Hospital of Dijon and from the regional council of Burgundy (AOI 2008). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The majority of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements diagnosed prenatally have been identified by prenatal karyotyping and the prevalence was estimated at 4% by the French Biomedicine Agency (http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr). Prenatal karyotyping is limited by resolution (10 Mb), requires cell culture and results are generally available within 2 weeks. In an attempt to overcome these limitations, alternative detection methods based on comparative genomic hybridization microarray (array-CGH) have been applied to prenatal diagnoses using higher resolution microarray –.
Historically, amniotic fluid (AF) samples were not considered for use in array-CGH analyses because of insufficient quantities of DNA. In prenatal diagnosis, it was shown that fetal cells extracted from amniotic fluid could be analyzed by array-CGH. Fetal DNA is present in large quantities in amniotic fluid, and Rebello et al.  showed that it could be extracted and analyzed by PCR from uncultured amniocytes. Bianchi et al.  showed that fetal DNA could be extracted from amniotic fluid supernatant (AF cffDNA) and used for genetic research and clinical applications. It has since been discovered that with an appropriate protocol, it is possible to release microgram amounts of DNA from amniotic fluid and perform array-CGH analysis . The minimum volume of uncultured amniotic fluid was 1 to 4 ml with or without Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) , , –. However, in many publications, WGA was used because it has been shown to amplify the original DNA when not enough DNA is available , –, . Cell culture was not required in some of these published methods , , , . However, fetal DNA was reliably extracted from cell-free fetal DNA  or uncultured amniotic fluid (AF) , , ,  and DNA yields have been reported to be influenced by gestational ages .
Here, we describe an improved technique for DNA extraction from 1 ml of uncultured amniotic fluid from patients with a gestational age less than 16 weeks. The technique allows array-CGH analysis to detect chromosomal copy number imbalances prenatally.
Materials and Methods
DNA Extraction Protocol
In the first step, we developed a new DNA extraction protocol, which was tested on 90 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid from a bank of 1400 samples of amniotic fluid collected in our laboratory since 2002 (average of 1 ml) and stored at −80°C. The indications for testing included advanced maternal age, abnormal ultrasound findings, a history of chromosomal abnormalities and convenience. Among the ninety samples of uncultured amniotic fluid (gestation age ranging from 13.1 to 34 weeks), 41 samples showed a gestational age of less than 16 weeks. Among these, five samples showed chromosomal abnormalities identified by conventional karyotype or FISH. We tested the previously published protocols to isolate genomic DNA from uncultured amniocytes using 1 ml of AF , . We did not manage to reproduce the results for DNA extraction from uncultured amniotic fluid using the Rickman et al.  protocol. We performed new DNA extraction from 1 ml of uncultured amniocytes with the QIAmp DNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA), but with several modifications . Indeed, we used smaller volumes of lysis buffer, wash buffer and elution buffer without RNase. We tested nine cases <16 WG with Rnase treatment. The DNA was purified and concentrated using a DNA Clean Concentrator kit (Zymo Research, CA). Briefly, the amniotic fluid was centrifuged for 15 min at 4000 rpm at room temperature. The supernatant was removed and the pellet retained. The pellet was washed in 500 µl 1×PBS by vortexing gently. Once the pellet had been resuspended, 50 µl of proteinase K and 600 µl Buffer AL were added. The tube was placed in a water bath at 58°C for 20 minutes, 300 µl of absolute ethanol at −20°C was added and the solution was mixed. A QIAamp DNA Mini Kit ™ column was placed on a collecting tube and half (~700 µl) of the solution was transferred. The solution was centrifuged for 2 minutes at 14000 rpm; the collection tube was emptied and the second half of the solution was transferred and centrifuged for 2 minutes at 14000 rpm. The column was placed on a new collection tube and DNA was washed with 500 µl of buffer AW1 and AW2 and 50 µl of AE buffer according to the protocol provided by Qiagen. Purification and Concentration with the DNA Clean & Concentrator ™ Kit were performed according to the protocol provided by Zymo. Approximately 10 µl of purified concentrated DNA was obtained and were estimated using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, DE). The experiments were only performed once in each case, due to the limited quantity of amniotic fluid (1 ml).
In the second step, we performed microarray Agilent 4×44 K on 10 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid samples of less than 16 weeks of gestation to evaluate the sensitivity of the protocol for the detection of abnormalities using five chromosomal abnormalities and the specificity using five normal karyotypes (Table 1). Furthermore, 12 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid of more than 16 weeks of gestation were analyzed by array-CGH (Table 2). Array-CGH was performed using the Agilent Human Genome CGH Microarray Kit 44 K (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA). This platform is a high-resolution 60-mer oligonucleotide-based microarray representing 44,000 probes (44 K) that allow a genome-wide survey and molecular profiling of genomic aberrations with an average resolution of ~35 kb . Array-CGH experiments were performed with the maximum amount of DNA available. Array-CGH analysis was performed according to the Agilent protocol with minor protocol modifications: DNA was labeled by direct incorporation of Cya-5 and Cya-3 using a CGH labeling kit for Oligo-array (Enzo Life Sciences, COVALAB, France) for 4 hr, and labeled products were purified by QIAamp DNA Mini kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). A graphical overview was obtained using CGH analytics software (v4.0), and the statistical algorithms ADM-2 according to a sensitivity threshold at 6.0 and a moving average window of 0.5 Mb . Mapping data were analyzed on the human genome sequence build hg18 using ensemble (www.ensembl.org). Copy Number Variations (CNV) were assessed in the Database of Genomic Variants (http://projects.tcag.ca/variation/).
In order to compare our improved technique with previously published techniques. Data reported by Bi et al.  were recaptured in order to compare them with ours, under the assumption that the populations studied shared the same baseline characteristics. Amounts of DNA and gestational age were described using their means, standard deviations, medians, and 95% confidence intervals. The normal distribution of DNA quantities and gestational age was checked using polynomial transformations. The logarithmic transformation was the most appropriate in this task and also stabilized their variances. The relationship between DNA quantities and gestational age was tested using a linear regression model, with a robust estimator of variance. The difference between DNA quantities in our study and those of Bi et al.  was assessed using the same model (which in this case corresponds to an analysis of variance). A multiple linear regression model, with a robust estimator variance was used to take into account gestational age and type of study simultaneously (Bi vs. ours), as predictors of DNA quantities. Whatever the model considered, logarithmic transforms were used. The adequacy of these models was tested using residuals analysis and by looking at the coefficient of determination.
We extracted between 28.3 and 840 ng of DNA per 1 ml of AF from each of the ninety uncultured samples (Table 3). There was a correlation between the duration of gestation and the amount of DNA (which is already known) and statistically significant differences were observed between the Bi et al. study  and our study (109.4 ng vs. 218.6 ng, respectively; p = 0.0147 See Table 4). Moreover, the multiple linear regression analysis showed the same results (Table 5).
For the subgroup of the 41 uncultured samples of amniocytes of less than 16 weeks of gestation with or without chromosomal abnormalities, between 28.3 and 238.7 ng of DNA per 1 ml of AF were extracted (Table 3). The quantities of DNA extracted from the 41 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid were greater than those using the protocol described by Bi et al.  (98.1 ng vs. 36.4 ng, respectively; p = 0.0003 See Table 4). The extraction protocol was reproducible and allowed us to obtain sufficient amounts of DNA with an average A260/A280 ratio of 1.92 for the 41 samples. The average A260/A230 ratio was dependent on the gestational age (0.83<16 wg, 1.53 17–20 wg, 1.73 21–22 wg and 1.66>23 wg). The average A260/A280 ratio for the ninety samples was 1.82, indicating that the DNA was of good quality. High-quality genomic DNA samples should have an A260/A280 ratio of 1.8 to 2.0, indicating the absence of contaminating proteins. The use of Rnase in 9 cases did not show any difference for the DO260/280 with or without Rnase (p = 0.699) (Table S1 and Table S2).
Ten samples <16 weeks of gestation.
Sensitivity: Chromosome imbalances in the five samples of uncultured amniotic fluid of less than 16 weeks of gestation analyzed by array-CGH 4*44 K Agilent were detected and characterized (Table 1). Three number abnormalities and two structural abnormalities (Figure 1 and Table 1) were characterized in DNA from the uncultured amniotic fluid. The quality control from Agilent with DLRS (Derivative Log Ratio Spread) showed from excellent to good quality for the five samples (DLRS between 0.09 to 0.31, Table 1). The smallest amount of DNA with abnormalities available for array-CGH experiments was 50 ng/ml (case 3). Only one case (case 6) showed a slight discordance in favor of the array-CGH, which detected a 2.3 Mb 5p15 duplication not identified by prenatal karyotyping in addition to the previously detected imbalance.
Specificity: The five samples with normal karyotypes showed that the smaller the amount of DNA, the greater the DLRS (between 0.26 and 0.60). Detection of CNV showed an average of three per patient ranging from 400 bp to 600 kb; all were found in the Database of Genomic Variants (DGV).
Twelve samples >16 weeks of gestation.
For the 12 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid with aneuploidy or structural abnormalities at more than 16 weeks’ gestation, all of the chromosomal imbalances were detected and characterized by array-CGH (Table 2 and Figure 2).
In recent years, there has been considerable progress in the use of array-CGH in the postnatal diagnosis of mental retardation . Studies of fetal tissue with multiple malformations or spontaneous miscarriages revealed 10% of unbalanced rearrangements –. Larrabee et al.  were the first to test the array-CGH technique to analyze fetal DNA extracted from AF cffDNA and to compare the results obtained by array-CGH with those obtained with conventional karyotyping. In the literature, in a prenatal context, array-CGH analysis of cultured AF has been applied to marker or apparently balanced translocations, and has allowed genetic counseling , .
Five retrospective , , , ,  and twelve prospective studies , , , , , , , , , , ,  of prenatal array-CGH with different resolutions and involving uncultured amniotic fluid have been published (Table 6 and 7). Only one of them matched the aims of the present study, i.e. to describe a new method for DNA extraction from small quantities of AF, but the authors only tested two samples <16 WG . Our results suggested that our improved protocol gave significantly higher quantities of DNA than did the Bi et al.  protocol (Table 4 and 5). Our new protocol for DNA extraction from uncultured AF generated DNA of superior quality in greater quantities for array-CGH from less AF. This protocol allowed the rapid analysis of the fetal genome without the need for cell culture, and therefore earlier diagnosis, or retrospective studies when only a small quantity of frozen AF is available. Even if the DLRS are not-optimal according to the recommendation protocols, all the known chromosomal rearrangements were confirmed. In one case, the array-CGH also showed a duplication (5p15, case 4) that was not detected by prenatal karyotyping because the size of the abnormality was too small to be detected by karyotype. Therefore, this method should be restricted to certain cases when biologists only have a small quantity of sample available. For array-CGH analysis on an Agilent platform, a yield of 50 ng is sufficient to obtain results using the protocol described here, without background noise. Many post-natal reports have demonstrated the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of array-CGH in detecting large and small imbalances. In our prenatal study, array-CGH showed reproducible results with high sensitivity and specificity in the analyses of 10 samples of uncultured amniotic fluid samples of less than 16 weeks of gestation. In our retrospective study, we were able to detect and characterize all of the rearrangements using 1 ml of uncultured AF before or after 16 weeks of gestation. We tested the DNA extraction protocol described by Rickman et al.  with 1 ml of uncultured AF without success (the amount of DNA extracted was between 33 and 130 ng from ten samples of uncultured amniotic fluid, gestational age ranging between 19 and 24 weeks). However, in prenatal studies, array-CGH is limited by the fact that this technique is unable to detect polyploidy and balanced chromosomal rearrangements. Furthermore, array-CGH has the potential to uncover unwanted information in the prenatal setting (genes that predispose for cancer, heterozygoty for autosomal recessive disease, carrier of X linked disease), which creates ethical problems in a prenatal context. In prenatal diagnosis, the detection of new CNV not reported in the Database of Genomic Variants (DGV), or variants with incomplete penetrance without ultrasound abnormalities could lead to major difficulties in genetic counseling.
In conclusion, this study describes a reproducible method for DNA extraction from only 1 ml of uncultured amniotic fluid with significantly greater quantities recovered in our study than in the Bi et al. study . This improved protocol for DNA extraction from 1 ml of uncultured AF permits array-CGH analysis in prenatal diagnosis from patients at less than 16 weeks’ gestation. This technique can be applied to retrospective and prospective studies and benefits from a number of advantages: short turn-around time, absence of culture and high resolution. Until array-CGH becomes a standard technique for prenatal diagnosis, it should be considered a complement to the standard prenatal karyotyping.
Summary for variables (do260280) by categories of Rnase.
Linear regression for variables (do260280) by categories of Rnase.
Conceived and designed the experiments: PC. Performed the experiments: CR MP NM ALM-B JT SEC. Analyzed the data: SA CT PC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CT-R TR PS FH FM. Wrote the paper: LF PC.
- 1. Larrabee PB, Johnson KL, Pestova E, Lucas M, Wilber K, et al. (2004) Microarray analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in amniotic fluid: a prenatal molecular karyotype. Am J Hum Genet 75(3): 485–491. doi: 10.1086/423288
- 2. Rickman L, Fiegler H, Shaw-Smith C, Nash R, Cirigliano V, et al. (2006) Prenatal detection of unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements by array CGH. J Med Genet 43(4): 353–361. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2005.037648
- 3. Sahoo T, Cheung SW, Ward P, Darilek S, Patel A, et al. (2006) Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Genet Med 8(11): 719–727. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000245576.47154.63
- 4. Miura S, Miura K, Masuzaki H, Miyake N, Yoshiura K, et al. (2006) Microarray comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)-based prenatal diagnosis for chromosome abnormalities using cell-free fetal DNA in amniotic fluid. J Hum Genet 51(5): 412–417. doi: 10.1007/s10038-006-0376-7
- 5. Lapaire O, Lu XY, Johnson KL, Jarrah Z, Stroh H, et al. (2007) Array-CGH analysis of cell-free fetal DNA in 10 mL of amniotic fluid supernatant. Prenat Diagn 27(7): 616–621. doi: 10.1002/pd.1752
- 6. Shaffer LG, Coppinger J, Alliman S, Torchia BA, Theisen A, et al. (2008) Comparison of microarray-based detection rates for cytogenetic abnormalities in prenatal and neonatal specimens. Prenat Diagn 28(9): 789–795. doi: 10.1002/pd.2053
- 7. Van den Veyver IB, Patel A, Shaw CA, Pursley AN, Kang SH, et al. (2009) Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases. Prenat Diagn 29(1): 29–39. doi: 10.1002/pd.2127
- 8. Bi W, Breman AM, Venable SF, Eng PA, Sahoo T, et al. (2008) Rapid prenatal diagnosis using uncultured amniocytes and oligonucleotide array CGH. Prenat Diagn 28(10): 943–949. doi: 10.1002/pd.2087
- 9. Kleeman L, Bianchi DW, Shaffer LG, Rorem E, Cowan J, et al. (2009) Use of array comparative genomic hybridization for prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with sonographic anomalies and normal metaphase karyotype. Prenat Diagn 29(13): 1213–1217. doi: 10.1002/pd.2367
- 10. Tyreman M, Abbott KM, Willatt LR, Nash R, Lees C, et al. (2009) High resolution array analysis: diagnosing pregnancies with abnormal ultrasound findings. J Med Genet 46(8): 531–541. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2008.065482
- 11. Choe J, Kang JK, Bae CJ, Lee DS, Hwang D, et al. (2007) Identification of origin of unknown derivative chromosomes by array-based comparative genomic hybridization using pre- and postnatal clinical samples. J Hum Genet 52(11): 934–942. doi: 10.1007/s10038-007-0199-1
- 12. Coppinger J, Alliman S, Lamb AN, Torchia BS, Bejjani BA, et al. (2009) Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray. Prenat Diagn 29(12): 1156–1166. doi: 10.1002/pd.2371
- 13. Maya I, Davidov B, Gershovitz L, Zalzstein Y, Taub E, et al. (2010) Diagnostic utility of array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in a prenatal setting. Prenat Diagn 30(12–13): 1131–1137. doi: 10.1002/pd.2626
- 14. Park SJ, Jung EH, Ryu RS, Kang HW, Ko JM, et al.. (2011) Clinical implementation of whole-genome array CGH as a first-tier test in 5080 pre and postnatal cases. Mol Cytogenet 4(12).
- 15. Fiorentino F, Caiazzo F, Napolitano S, Spizzichino L, Bono S, et al. (2011) Introducing array comparative genomic hybridization into routine prenatal diagnosis practice: a prospective study on over 1000 consecutive clinical cases. Prenat Diagn 31(13): 1270–1282. doi: 10.1002/pd.2884
- 16. Lee CN, Lin SY, Lin CH, Shih JC, Lin TH, et al. (2012) Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation for prenatal diagnosis: a cohort study of 3171 pregnancies. Bjog 119(10): 1282. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03419.x
- 17. Rebello MT, Hackett G, Smith J, Loeffler FE, Robson S, et al. (1991) Extraction of DNA from amniotic fluid cells for the early prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease. Prenat Diagn 11(1): 41–46. doi: 10.1002/pd.1970110108
- 18. Bianchi DW, LeShane ES, Cowan JM (2001) Large amounts of cell-free fetal DNA are present in amniotic fluid. Clin Chem 47(10): 1867–1869.
- 19. Mochel F, Missirian C, Reynaud R, Moncla A (2008) Normal intelligence and social interactions in a male patient despite the deletion of NLGN4X and the VCX genes. Eur J Med Genet 51(1): 68–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2007.11.002
- 20. Masurel-Paulet A, Callier P, Thauvin-Robinet C, Chouchane M, Mejean N, et al. (2009) Multiple cysts of the corpus callosum and psychomotor delay in a patient with a 3.1 Mb 15q24.1q24.2 interstitial deletion identified by array-CGH. Am J Med Genet A 149A(7): 1504–1510. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32904
- 21. Shaffer LG, Beaudet AL, Brothman AR, Hirsch B, Levy B, et al. (2007) Microarray analysis for constitutional cytogenetic abnormalities. Genet Med 9(9): 654–662. doi: 10.1097/gim.0b013e31814ce3d9
- 22. Valduga M, Philippe C, Bach Segura P, Thiebaugeorges O, Miton A, et al. A retrospective study by oligonucleotide array-CGH analysis in 50 fetuses with multiple malformations. Prenat Diagn 30(4): 333–341. doi: 10.1002/pd.2460
- 23. Le Caignec C, Boceno M, Saugier-Veber P, Jacquemont S, Joubert M, et al. (2005) Detection of genomic imbalances by array based comparative genomic hybridisation in fetuses with multiple malformations. J Med Genet 42(2): 121–128. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2004.025478
- 24. Schaeffer AJ, Chung J, Heretis K, Wong A, Ledbetter DH, et al. (2004) Comparative genomic hybridization-array analysis enhances the detection of aneuploidies and submicroscopic imbalances in spontaneous miscarriages. Am J Hum Genet 74(6): 1168–1174. doi: 10.1086/421250
- 25. Valduga M, Philippe C, Bach Segura P, Thiebaugeorges O, Miton A, et al. (2010) A retrospective study by oligonucleotide array-CGH analysis in 50 fetuses with multiple malformations. Prenat Diagn 30(4): 333–341. doi: 10.1002/pd.2460
- 26. D’Amours G, Kibar Z, Mathonnet G, Fetni R, Tihy F, et al. (2012) Whole-genome array CGH identifies pathogenic copy number variations in fetuses with major malformations and a normal karyotype. Clin Genet 81(2): 128–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01687.x
- 27. Callier P, Faivre L, Pigeonnat S, Quilichini B, Marle N, et al. (2009) Contribution of array CGH in prognosis and genetic counselling of prenatally diagnosed supernumerary ring chromosome 20. Prenat Diagn 29(10): 1002–1005. doi: 10.1002/pd.2333
- 28. Sung PL, Chang SP, Wen KC, Chang CM, Yang MJ, et al. (2009) Small supernumerary marker chromosome originating from chromosome 10 associated with an apparently normal phenotype. Am J Med Genet A 149A(12): 2768–2774. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32878
- 29. Gruchy N, Decamp M, Richard N, Jeanne-Pasquier C, Benoist G, et al. (2012) Array CGH analysis in high-risk pregnancies: comparing DNA from cultured cells and cell-free fetal DNA. Prenat Diagn 32(4): 383–388. doi: 10.1002/pd.2861