Classical, Molecular, and Genomic Cytogenetics of the Pig, a Clinical Perspective

The chromosomes of the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) are known to be prone to reciprocal chromosome translocations and other balanced chromosome rearrangements with concomitant fertility impairment of carriers. In response to the remarkable prevalence of chromosome rearrangements in swine herds, clinical cytogenetics laboratories have been established in several countries in order to screen young boars for chromosome rearrangements prior to service. At present, clinical cytogenetics laboratories typically apply classical cytogenetics techniques such as giemsa-trypsin (GTG)-banding to produce high-quality karyotypes and reveal large-scale chromosome ectopic exchanges. Further refinements to clinical cytogenetics practices have led to the implementation of molecular cytogenetics techniques such as fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH), allowing for rearrangements to be visualized and breakpoints refined using fluorescently labelled painting probes. The next-generation of clinical cytogenetics include the implementation of DNA microarrays, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies such as DNA sequencing to better explore tentative genome architecture changes. The implementation of these cytogenomics techniques allow the genomes of rearrangement carriers to be deciphered at the highest resolution, allowing rearrangements to be detected; breakpoints to be delineated; and, most importantly, potential gene implications of those chromosome rearrangements to be interrogated. Clinical cytogenetics has become an integral tool in the livestock industry, identifying rearrangements and allowing breeders to make informed breeding decisions.

Horse Clinical Cytogenetics: Recurrent Themes and Novel Findings

Clinical cytogenetic studies in horses have been ongoing for over half a century and clearly demonstrate that chromosomal disorders are among the most common non-infectious causes of decreased fertility, infertility, and congenital defects. Large-scale cytogenetic surveys show that almost 30% of horses with reproductive or developmental problems have chromosome aberrations, whereas abnormal karyotypes are found in only 2–5% of the general population. Among the many chromosome abnormalities reported in the horse, most are unique or rare. However, all surveys agree that there are two recurrent conditions: X-monosomy and SRY-negative XY male-to-female sex reversal, making up approximately 35% and 11% of all chromosome abnormalities, respectively. The two are signature conditions for the horse and rare or absent in other domestic species. The progress in equine genomics and the development of molecular tools, have qualitatively improved clinical cytogenetics today, allowing for refined characterization of aberrations and understanding the underlying molecular mechanisms. While cutting-edge genomics tools promise further improvements in chromosome analysis, they will not entirely replace traditional cytogenetics, which still is the most straightforward, cost-effective, and fastest approach for the initial evaluation of potential breeding animals and horses with reproductive or developmental disorders.

Chromosome Abnormalities and Fertility in Domestic Bovids: A Review

After discovering the Robertsonian translocation rob(1;29) in Swedish red cattle and demonstrating its harmful effect on fertility, the cytogenetics applied to domestic animals have been widely expanded in many laboratories in order to find relationships between chromosome abnormalities and their phenotypic effects on animal production. Numerical abnormalities involving autosomes have been rarely reported, as they present abnormal animal phenotypes quickly eliminated by breeders. In contrast, numerical sex chromosome abnormalities and structural chromosome anomalies have been more frequently detected in domestic bovids because they are often not phenotypically visible to breeders. For this reason, these chromosome abnormalities, without a cytogenetic control, escape selection, with subsequent harmful effects on fertility, especially in female carriers. Chromosome abnormalities can also be easily spread through the offspring, especially when using artificial insemination. The advent of chromosome banding and FISH-mapping techniques with specific molecular markers (or chromosome-painting probes) has led to the development of powerful tools for cytogeneticists in their daily work. With these tools, they can identify the chromosomes involved in abnormalities, even when the banding pattern resolution is low (as has been the case in many published papers, especially in the past). Indeed, clinical cytogenetics remains an essential step in the genetic improvement of livestock.

Conventional Cytogenetic Analysis of Hematologic Neoplasms: A 20-Year Review of Proficiency Test Results From the College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee

Context.— One goal of the joint College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Cytogenetics Committee is to ensure the accurate detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities in both constitutional and neoplastic specimens, including hematologic neoplasms. Objective.— To report a 20-year performance summary (1999–2018) of conventional chromosome challenges focusing on hematologic neoplasms. Design.— A retrospective review was performed from 1999 through 2018 to identify karyotype challenges specifically addressing hematologic neoplasms. The overall performance of participants was examined to identify potential recurring errors of clinical significance. Results.— Of 288 total conventional chromosome challenges from 1999–2018, 87 (30.2%) were presented in the context of a hematologic neoplasm, based on the provided clinical history, specimen type, and/or chromosomal abnormalities. For these 87 hematologic neoplasm challenges, 91 individual cases were provided and graded on the basis of abnormality recognition and karyotype nomenclature (ISCN, International System for Human Cytogenomic [previously Cytogenetic] Nomenclature). Of the 91 cases, 89 (97.8%) and 87 (95.6%) exceeded the required 80% consensus for grading of abnormality recognition and correct karyotype nomenclature, respectively. The 2 cases (2 of 91; 2.2%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for abnormality recognition had complex karyotypes. The 4 cases (4 of 91; 4.4%) that failed to meet the 80% consensus for correct karyotype nomenclature were the result of incorrect abnormality recognition (2 cases), missing brackets in the karyotype (1 case), and incorrect breakpoint designation (1 case). Conclusions.— This 20-year review demonstrates clinical cytogenetics laboratories have been and continue to be highly proficient in the detection and description of chromosomal abnormalities associated with hematologic neoplasms.