Genetic Mutations Reported in Patients of Consanguineous and Nonconsanguineous Marriages who Presented at a Tertiary Health Center for Genetic Counseling
Citation Information :
Joseph A, Thanmayi G, Ramesh N. Genetic Mutations Reported in Patients of Consanguineous and Nonconsanguineous Marriages who Presented at a Tertiary Health Center for Genetic Counseling. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2023; 15 (5):517-525.
Background and objectives: It is vital to understand the function of every gene in the human genome, which determines the outcomes of an offspring based on copies of genes and the resulting phenotypes. Consanguinity is the sexual union or marriage between two individuals within their relatives (such as second cousins), sharing a common gene pool or biological ancestor. Hence, with the minimal information on consanguinity and the possible associated genetic mutations present in the South Indian population.
Methods: The data were collected by reviewing all the assessments done among parents identified to have 2nd- and/or 3rd-degree consanguineous marriage or genetic syndromes or any genetic abnormalities. The data analyzed were based on the records reviewed from 1st January 2018 to 31st May 2021, and ethical approval was obtained. Type of genetic mutations, fetal variables, maternal variables, paternal variables, and association of phenotypic outcomes in an individual born of consanguineous union were evaluated.
Results: The study evaluated 529 parents with genetic syndromes or any genetic abnormalities, who were assessed in terms of consanguinity status and outcomes of the most recent pregnancy. It was found that more than half of the parents, 307 (58.0%), had a live baby born with congenital anomalies followed by 102 (19.3%) parents who had a normal live baby, abortions 90 (17.0%), and IUD 6 (1.1%).
Conclusion: The incidence increases with the consanguinity, and therefore, it is imperative to educate our population against consanguineous marriages and thereby bring down the incidence of genetic syndromes. Mental and physical disabilities are the main outcomes of these conditions.
Saleheen D, Natarajan P, Armean IM, et al. Human knockouts and phenotypic analysis in a cohort with a high rate of consanguinity. Nature 2017;544(7649):235–239.
Thain E, Shuman C, Miller K, et al. Prenatal and preconception genetic counseling for consanguinity: Consanguineous couples’ expectations, experiences, and perspectives. J Genetic Couns 2019;28(5):982–992. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1150.
Oniya O, Neves K, Ahmed B, et al. A review of the reproductive consequences of consanguinity. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019;232:87–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.042.
Bhinder MA, Sadia H, Mahmood N, et al. Consanguinity: A blessing or menace at population level? Ann Hum Genet 2019;83(4):214–219. DOI: 10.1111/ahg.12308.
Vahidnezhad H, Youssefian L, Saeidian AH, et al. Gene-targeted next generation sequencing identifies PNPLA1 mutations in patients with a phenotypic spectrum of autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis: The impact of consanguinity. J Invest Dermatol 2017;137(3):678–685. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.11.012.
AbdulAzeez S, Al Qahtani NH, Almandil NB, et al. Genetic disorder prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy termination practices among high consanguinity population, Saudi Arabia. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):17248. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53655-8.
Kapurubandara S, Melov S, Shalou E, et al. Consanguinity and associated perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016;56(6):599–604. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12493.
Sallevelt SC, Stegmann AP, de Koning B, et al. Diagnostic exome-based preconception carrier testing in consanguineous couples: Results from the first 100 couples in clinical practice. Genet Med 2021;23(6):1125–1136. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01116-x.
Roy N, Ghaziuddin M, Mohiuddin S. Consanguinity and autism. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2020;22(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1007/s11920-019-1124-y.
Najafi K, Gholami S, Moshtagh A, et al. Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases. Mol Genet Genomic Med 2019;7(8):e820. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.820.
Saad FA, Jauniaux E. Recurrent early pregnancy loss and consanguinity. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;5(2):167–170. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61620-3.
Bittles AH. A community genetics perspective on consanguineous marriage. Community Genet 2008;11(6):324–330. DOI: 10.1159/000133304.
Modell B, Darr A. Science and society: Genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nat Rev Genet 2002;3(3):225–229. DOI: 10.1038/nrg754.
Becker R, Keller T, Wegner RD, et al. Consanguinity and pregnancy outcomes in a multi-ethnic, metropolitan European population. Prenat Diagn 201535(1):81–89. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4487.
Obeidat BR, Khader YS, Amarin ZO, et al. Consanguinity and adverse pregnancy outcomes: The north of Jordan experience. Matern Child Health J 2010;14(2):283–289. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-008-0426-1.
Darr A, Small N, Ahmad WI, et al. Addressing key issues in the consanguinity-related risk of autosomal recessive disorders in consanguineous communities: Lessons from a qualitative study of British Pakistanis. J Community Genet 2016;7(1):65–79. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-015-0252-2.
Gowri V, Udayakumar AM, Bsiso W, et al. Recurrent early pregnancy loss and consanguinity in Omani couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90(10):1167–1169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01200.x.
Søgaard M, Vedsted-Jakobsen A. Consanguinity and congenital abnormalities. Ugeskr Laeger 2003;165(18):1851–1855. PMID: 12772391.
Monies D, Abouelhoda M, Assoum M, et al. Lessons learned from large-scale, first-tier clinical exome sequencing in a highly consanguineous population. Am J Hum Genet 2019;104(6):1182–1201. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.04.011.
Fareed M, Afzal M. Genetics of consanguinity and inbreeding in health and disease. Ann Hum Biol 2017;44(2):99–107. DOI: 10.1080/03014460.2016.1265148.
Rahman MM, Naznin L, Giti S, et al. Premarital health screening a review and update. J Armed Forces Med Coll, Bangladesh 2014; 10(1):103–109. PMID: 34287808.
