Abstract
Background:
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is widely used for screening common fetal aneuploidies such as trisomy 21 (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), and trisomy 13 (T13). However, its utility in detecting trisomy 3 (T3) has been rarely reported. Furthermore, uniparental disomy (UPD) involving chromosome 3 is a rare genetic condition with potential phenotypic consequences.
Methods:
NIPT indicated a high risk for fetal T3. This finding was further investigated using copy number variation (CNV) analysis via trio-based chromosomal microarray analysis (trio-CMA). Subsequent trio-based whole-genome sequencing (trio-WGS) identified a homozygous variant in PLXNA1 associated with a putative autosomal recessive disorder in the fetus. The detected variant was validated by Sanger sequencing in the parents.
Results:
NIPT revealed a fetal Z-score (27.22) for T3. Trio-CMA ruled out T3 but confirmed mixed maternal UPD3. Trio-WGS identified a homozygous PLXNA1 variant (NM_032242.3:c.2497G>C, p.Ala833Pro) in the fetus, inherited from the heterozygous mother. The observed severe fetal phenotype was partial consistent with the molecular findings of mixed UPD3 and the homozygous PLXNA1 variant, indicating that this variant may represent a potential pathogenic cause.
Conclusions:
While NIPT can signal a high risk for rare aneuploidies, definitive diagnosis requires invasive prenatal testing. Discrepancies between NIPT and fetal tissue analyses may arise from confined placental mosaicism (CPM). We propose a model in which nondisjunction of chromosome 3 during germ cell formation led to trisomy, followed by a postzygotic self-correction event, resulting in mixed maternal UPD3 and increased risk of autosomal recessive disorders.
1 Introduction
T3 is one of the rarest autosomal trisomies detected via NIPT (1). While the likelihood of true fetal aneuploidy is low, such cases are associated with an elevated risk for adverse obstetric outcomes and UPD (2).
UPD occurs when both copies of a chromosome are inherited from one parent. Mechanisms underlying UPD include trisomy rescue, monosomy rescue, gametic complementation, and somatic recombination. UPD is further categorized into heterodisomy (hetUPD), which involves the inheritance of both non-identical homologous chromosomes from one parent, and isodisomy (isoUPD), which involves the inheritance of two identical copies of the same chromosome. UPD can also be classified as maternal (matUPD) or paternal (patUPD) based on the parental origin (3). UPD can lead to disease by unmasking autosomal recessive disorders or disrupting the expression of imprinted genes. Specific phenotypic outcomes have been well-documented in matUPD for chromosomes 7, 11, 14, 15, and 20, and in patUPD for chromosomes 6, 11, 14, 15, and 20 (4–6). While UPD has been reported for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome, it is most frequently observed on chromosomes 1, 4, 16, 21, 22, and X (7). However, although chromosome 3 does not harbor well-characterized imprinted genes, isoUPD3 increases the risk of autosomal recessive disorders.
Here, we report the first case of a fetus with matUPD3 carrying a homozygous PLXNA1 variant. The fetal phenotype, which included early-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR), abnormal cerebellar development, ventricular septal defect, persistent truncus arteriosus, abnormal venous duct development, and left congenital diaphragmatic hernia, was observed alongside both the matUPD3 and the homozygous PLXNA1 genotype. These findings highlight the clinical value of comprehensive trio-based analysis in diagnosis for delineating potential genotype-phenotype correlations, thereby informing genetic counseling and pregnancy management.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Subjects
This study involved a 34-year-old primigravida (G1P0) and her 35-year-old husband, both with no significant family genetic history (data collected in 2024), who presented at the Prenatal Diagnostic Center of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University for routine screening. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study protocol was approved by the Hospital Ethics Committee (No. KY-2025-382-01).
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 NIPT
Maternal peripheral blood (5 ml) was collected in Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT® blood collection tubes (Streck, La Vista, NE, United States) at a gestational age of 12 weeks. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from 200 μL of maternal plasma. Library preparation included end repair, adapter ligation, and PCR. Amplified double-stranded DNA was thermally denatured into single-stranded DNA, cyclized, and converted into DNA nanoballs (DNBs). The DNBs were loaded onto sequencing chips and sequenced on the MGISEQ-2000 platform (BGI, Shenzhen, China) at the 0.1X average coverage. Raw reads were aligned to the genome version GRCh37/hg19 using BWA. Uniquely mapped reads were selected using SAM tags, and PCR duplicates were removed. Z-scores were calculated to detect fetal chromosomal aneuploidies and CNVs.
2.2.2 Ultrasound examination
A subsequent comprehensive ultrasound examination at 15 weeks of gestation revealed severe FGR (Figure 1) in conjunction with multiple severe congenital structural anomalies (Figure 2), detailed as follows:
-
Cardiac Anomalies: persistent truncus arteriosus was suspected on fetal echocardiography, characterized by a single great artery overriding a large VSD (~1.6 mm), rightward cardiac displacement, and mild tricuspid regurgitation.
-
Cerebellar and CNS abnormalities: severe cerebellar hypoplasia was suspected based on the marked hypoplasia with indistinct hemispheric contours and an obliterated posterior fossa cistern.
-
Diaphragmatic Hernia: a left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia was suspected, given the visualization of the stomach in the left hemithorax with resulting mediastinal shift and compression of the left lung.
Figure 1
Fetal biometry at 15 weeks demonstrating severe growth restriction. GA (LMP) 15w3d, GA (AUA) 13w5d. (A) BPD value 2.46 cm, Z score −2.34. (B) HC value 9.20 cm, Z score −2.46. (C) AC value 6.48 cm, Z score −4.71. (D) FL value 1.06 cm, Z score −3.57. (E) EFW 73 g ± 11 g, Z score −10.78. GA, gestational weeks; LMP, last menstrual period; AUA, average ultrasound age; BPD, biparietal diameter; HC, head circumference; AC, abdominal circumference; FL, femur length.
Figure 2
Diverse fetal anomalies identified on prenatal ultrasound. (A) Ventricular deficiency. (B) Abnormal development of venous ducts. (C) Intravenous catheterization spectrum reverse a-wave. (D) Common trunk of great arteries. (E) abnormal cerebellar development. (F) left congenital diaphragmatic hernia.
Given these findings, the pregnancy was terminated after genetic counseling. The parents declined a fetal postmortem examination, which limited further phenotypic characterization.
2.2.3 Trio-CMA
Approximately 10 ml of amniotic fluid was collected and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min to obtain the cell pellet. Genomic DNA (gDNA) for CMA was then extracted from the pellet using the QIAGEN DNA Mini Kit (Cat. 51306; QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A total of 250 ng of extracted gDNA was amplified, labeled, and hybridized to the Affymetrix CytoScan 750K array following the manufacturer's protocol. Raw data were analyzed in Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) and annotated to GRCh37. CNV calls required ≥50 contiguous probes and a minimum size of ≥100 kb. Runs of homozygosity (ROH) were reported and interpreted in clinical context; large ROH (>10 Mb), particularly when restricted to imprinting chromosomes (6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20), prompted evaluation for possible UPD. Detected CNVs were interpreted with reference to the scientific literature and public databases.
2.2.4 Trio-WGS
Trio-WGS was performed on gDNA extracted from the fetal tissue and on parental blood gDNA. Each gDNA (300 ng) was enzymatically fragmented, and the resulting fragments underwent magnetic bead-based size selection (200–300 bp). After end repair and adapter ligation, the library was purified and PCR-amplified. Quality-controlled libraries were circularized and digested to generate DNBs. The DNBs were pooled and sequenced on the DNBSEQ-T7 platform (PE100+10). Reads were processed with SOAPnuke (8) and aligned to GRCh37/hg19 using BWA; GATK was used for SNV/indel calling (9), followed by annotation and filtering against population and disease databases. Variant interpretation followed American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines (10), and exome-derived single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)/ROH information was leveraged to assess segmental UPD.
2.2.5 Sanger sequencing
To validate the identified variant, primers were designed to flank the target regions. PCR amplification was performed, and the amplicons were subjected to Sanger Sequencing. The obtained sequences were compared against the reference sequence of the PLXNA1 gene (NM_032242.3:c.2497G>C) to confirm the findings from WGS.
2.2.6 3D modeling of protein structure
The 3D structures of the wild-type and mutant proteins were predicted using AlphaFold3, as described by Josh Abramson et al. (11). Five independent models were generated for each variant. The model with the highest predicted Template Modeling (pTM) score was selected for subsequent analysis. The selected structures were visualized and analyzed using PyMOL (v2.5.6) to assess the structural impact of the variant. Final figures were annotated and rendered in Adobe Illustrator 2021 CC. We emphasize that this computational analysis serves only as a predictive tool to generate a testable structural hypothesis, not as functional validation.
3 Results
3.1 NIPT
The fetal NIPT result indicated a high risk for T3. Several quality control metrics were used to evaluate the sequencing data. The fetal DNA fraction was 16.12%. The Q30 score was 93.89%, indicating the proportion of bases with a quality score exceeding 90%. The number of unique reads was 7.29 million, and the Z-score for T3 was 27.22 (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Autosomal Z-score chart in NIPT. Fetal fraction (FF): 16.12%. Z-score for T3 was 27.22.
3.2 Trio-CMA
The Affymetrix CytoScan 750K CMA did not identify any pathogenic or likely pathogenic CNVs in the fetus. However, four ROH segments were detected on chromosome 3 (Figure 4; Table 1). SNP analysis of the trio-CMA revealed complete maternal UPD3 with both heterodisomic and isodisomic regions in the fetus, as shown by Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) and UPD-Tool statistics (Figures 5A–C). These findings suggest the presence of eight breaks leading to two crossover events on chromosome 3 during maternal meiosis I (Figure 5D).
Figure 4
ROH results in Affymetrix CytoScan 750K CMA. (A) ChAS revealed segmental ROH across the entire chromosome (purple rectangle, red arrow). (B) A whole chromosome view clearly shows the copy neutral ROH on chromosome 3 in the fetus (red arrow). ROH, runs of homozygosity.
Table 1
| ID | Microarray nomenclature | Type | Cytoband start | Cytoband end | Length | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | arr[GRCh37]3p26.3p24.2(73,603_24,898,233)x2 | ROH | p26.3 | p24.2 | 24.8 Mb | VUS |
| 2 | arr[GRCh37]3p14.3p11.1(55,593,238_90,485,635)x2 | ROH | P14.3 | P11.1 | 34.8 Mb | VUS |
| 3 | arr[GRCh37]3q11.1q22.3(93,558,926_138,054,521)x2 | ROH | q11.1 | q22.3 | 44.4 Mb | VUS |
| 4 | arr[GRCh37]3q27.2q29(184,561,541_197,791,601)x2 | ROH | q27.2 | q29 | 13.2 Mb | VUS |
ROH segments identified on chromosome 3 by CMA.
ROH, runs of homozygosity; Mb, million bases; VUS, variant of unknown significance.
Figure 5
Analysis of segmental maternal UPD3 and its underlying mechanism. (A) Classification of UPD using the UPDtool showed the fetus was segmental maternal isoUPD. FracHom (blue line) is the fraction of homozygous SNPs, FracME (red line) is the fraction of mendelian error SNPs, FracldentFather (green line) is the fraction of SNPs where the genotype is identical to the father, FracldentMother (black line) is the fraction of SNPs where the genotype is identical to the mother, and FracError (yellow line) is the fraction of errors. (B) ChAS software directly indicates that the segmental isoUPD originated from her mother after comparing the genotyping results between the fetus and her parents, father's alleles were AA, mother‘s alleles were BB, fetal alleles were BB, or father's alleles were BB, mother‘s alleles were AA, fetal alleles were AA, or father's alleles were AA, mother‘s alleles were AB, fetal alleles were BB, or father's alleles were BB, mother‘s alleles were AB, fetal alleles were AA (blue arrow). (C) ChAS software directly indicates that the hetUPD originated from her mother after comparing the genotyping results between the fetus and her parents, father's alleles were AA, mother‘s alleles were AB, fetal alleles were AB, or father's alleles were BB, mother‘s alleles were AB, fetal alleles were AB (red arrow). (D) The postulated mechanism for the formation of mixed UPD. Segmental isoUPD was caused by nondisjunction in meiosis I after two crossing overs had happened, resulting in sections of isodisomy and heterodisomy on the UPD chromosome 3. isoUPD, isodisomy uniparental; hetUPD, heterodisomy uniparental.
3.3 Trio-WGS
WGS revealed matUPD of chromosome 3, involving both isodisomy and heterodisomy regions in the fetus. The isodisomic regions included four segments of ROH segments: 22.5 Mb at 3p26.3–p24.3 (GRCh37:3:1–22,500,000), 33.4 Mb at 3p14.3–p11.1 (GRCh37:3:55,100,000–88,500,000), 45 Mb at 3p11.1–q22.2 (GRCh37:3:90,600,000–135,600,000), and 8.7 Mb at 3q27.1–q29 (GRCh37:3:184,100,000–192,800,000). Within these regions, a homozygous PLXNA1 variant (NM_032242.3:c.2497G>C, p.Ala833Pro) was identified. This variant was classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) according to the ACMG guidelines, with PM2 (absent from controls), PM3 (homozygous due to UPD, confirming in trans status), and PP2 (missense variant in PLXNA1; the gene is highly intolerant to missense variation as indicated by a gnomAD missense Z-score of 3.45, and missense variants are a known disease mechanism for this gene). Its pathogenicity classification may change in the future as more data accumulate.
3.4 Sanger sequencing
Sanger sequencing confirmed that the fetus was homozygous for the c.2497G>C (p.Ala833Pro) variant in the PLXNA1 gene. The mother was heterozygous for this variant, while it was not detected in the father. The corresponding family pedigree is provided (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Sanger sequencing results of the PLXNA1 c.2497G>C variant in the pedigree. (A) Sanger sequencing chromatogram of PLXNA1, showing heterozygous c.2497G>C variant in the mother, homozygous c.2497G>C variant in the fetus, while wild type in father (Red frame). (B) The pedigree of the family with PLXNA1: c.2497G>C variant.
3.5 3D modeling of protein structure
In the wild-type PLXNA1 protein, the Ala833 residue forms hydrogen bonds with Cys831 and Ser850, which stabilizes the local structure. Upon substitution with proline (Pro833), however, the unique cyclic conformation and inherent rigidity of the residue disrupt these native interactions. This structural perturbation is predicted to reduce protein stability, potentially leading to misfolding, aggregation, and degradation (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Structural and functional impact of the PLXNA1 p.Ala833Pro variant. (A) Schematic protein domain structure adapted from St. Clair et al. and https://www.deciphergenomics.org/. The biallelic variants with PLXNA1: c.2497G>C (p.Ala833Pro) is on the PSI domain. PSI, plexin, semaphorin, integrin domain; IPT, Ig-like, plexin, transcription factors domain; TM, transmembrane; GAP C1/2, split Ras-GTPase-activating protein domains; RBD, Rho family GTPase-binding domain. (B) A sequence alignment highlights the conservation of PLXNA1: c.2497G>C (p.Ala833Pro) across mammal with highly developed nervous system, sense organs, brain. (C) 3D protein structure prediction shows the wild type of PLXNA1, the Ala833 site forms hydrogen bonds with Cys831 and Ser850, thereby stabilizing the local structure of the protein. However, after mutated to Pro833, due to the special self-forming mechanism of proline, all the original interactions disappeared, which may reduce the stability of the protein, and make the protein precipitate and degrade.
3.6 . Literature review
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) using the search terms “UPD3” and “uniparental disomy chromosome 3.” Twelve relevant cases were identified, from which the following data were extracted: sex, prenatal and postnatal phenotypes, placental findings, UPD size, UPD type, karyotype, and additional genetic findings (Table 2).
Table 2
| References | Published year | Age | Mat/Pat | Mat age | Pat age | Size of UPD3 | Type | Gene | Variation type | Band | Disease | Other genetic findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schollen et al. (13) | 2005 | 4Y | Mat | – | – | 3q21.3-3qter | Segmental UPD | ALG3: p.R266C (c.796C > T) | Homozygous | 3q27.1 | Congenital disorder of glycosylation type Id (CDG-Id) | de novo mutation |
| Hoffman et al. (14) | 2007 | 23M | Mat | – | – | Chr3 | Isodisomy | GLUT2:C1213T | Homozygous | 3q26.2 | Fanconi Bickel syndrome (FBS) | ABCC8: T1252C heterozygous mutation |
| Fassihi et al. (15) | 2006 | 1Y | Mat | 34 | 35 | Chr3 | Isodisomy | COL7A1:345insG | Homozygous | 3p21.31 | Hallopeau–Siemens recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (HS-RDEB) | 46, XY |
| Srebniak et al. (36) | 2008 | 12 weeks of gestate+on | Mat | 36 | – | Chr3 | Isodisomy | NO | NO | IUGR, microcephatus | Mat UPD (3), der (3) pat | |
| King et al. (16) | 2014 | 1.5Y | Mat | – | – | Chr3 | Isodisomy | GLB1:c.1038G > C(p.Lys346Asn) | Homozygous | 3p22.3 | GM1 gangliosidosis | – |
| Tahara et al. (17) | 2020 | 1Y | Mat | – | – | Chr3 | Isodisomy | LIPH:c.736T > A (p.C246S) | Homozygous | 3q27.2 | Woolly hair/hypotrichosis | – |
| Kopp et al. (18) | 2021 | 18M | Mat | – | – | Chr3 | Isodisomy | ABHD5:c.700C > T, p.(Arg234*) | Homozygous | 3p22.1 | Chanarin–Dorfman syndrome | de novo mutation |
| Xiao et al. (22) | 2006 | 42Y | Paternal | 19 | 26 | Chr3 | Isodisomy | NO | NO | NO | NO | 46, XY |
| Matejas et al. (19) | 2011 | 20D | Paternal | 36 | 41 | Chr3 | isodisomy | LAMB2:c.1405+1G>A | Homozygosity | 3p21.31 | Pierson syndrome | 46, XY |
| Myers et al. (20) | 2017 | 10Y | Paternal | – | – | Chr3 | mosaic UPD | GLB1:c.75+2dupT | mosaic paternal UPD, estimated at ~45% of cells in blood | 3p22.3 | GM1 gangliosidosis | – |
| Andolfo et al. (21) | 2020 | 21D | Paternal | – | – | Chr3 | Segmental UPD | SLC25A38:c.832C>T(p.Arg278*) | Homozygous | 3p22.1 | Sideroblastic anemias | – |
| Bu et al. (23) | 2021 | 1.5Y | Paternal | 46 | 59 | Chr3 | Isodisomy | NO | NO | NO | No physical abnormalities | 46, XX |
Clinical and molecular findings from published cases of UPD3.
–, No mention; NO, not found.
4 Discussion
Previous estimates of UPD prevalence, ranging from 1 in 3,500 to 1 in 5,000, were derived from extrapolations based on clinically apparent UPD cases, which failed to account for chromosomal variability or UPD associated with healthy phenotypes. More recent data suggest that UPD is approximately twice as prevalent in the general population, with an estimated rate of 1 in 2,000 births (12). Regarding UPD specifically involving UPD3, a total of 12 cases have been reported, comprising 9 cases of complete UPD3, 2 cases of segmental UPD3, and 1 case of mosaic UPD3. Based on parental origin, 7 cases were maternal and 5 were paternal. Among the 7 maternal UPD3 cases with abnormal phenotypes, 6 were due to homozygous pathogenic variants of autosomal recessive disorders, and 1 exhibited an abnormal karyotype. The disorders associated with these cases included congenital disorder of glycosylation type Id (ALG3) (13), Fanconi–Bickel syndrome (GLUT2) (14), Hallopeau–Siemens recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (COL7A1) (15), GM1 gangliosidosis (GLB1) (16), woolly hair/hypotrichosis (LIPH) (17), and Chanarin–Dorfman syndrome (ABHD5) (18).
In the 5 reported cases of patUPD, 3 were linked to single-gene disorders, while 2 exhibited no apparent phenotypic abnormalities. The phenotypes associated with paternal UPD3 included Pierson syndrome (LAMB2) (19), GM1 gangliosidosis (GLB1) (20), and sideroblastic anemia (SLC25A38) (21). Notably, 2 cases of paternal UPD3 involving the entire chromosome were described without evident disease phenotypes. Xiao (22) reported a 42-year-old male who was identified through whole-genome linkage analysis and exhibited no overt phenotypic abnormalities. Bu (23) described a fetus with normal prenatal ultrasound findings; follow-up at 1.5 years revealed no significant growth or developmental abnormalities. Regarding the potential for imprinting on chromosome 3, although bioinformatics predictions have identified two maternally expressed genes (ALDH1L1 and ZIC2) and one paternally expressed gene (HES1), no functional imprinted regions or definitive imprinted genes have been documented. All reported UPD3 cases with abnormal phenotypes have resulted from homozygous variants in genes associated with autosomal recessive disorders.
In the present study, trio-CMA and trio-WGS identified large ROH segments encompassing the entire maternal chromosome 3, demonstrating a case of mixed maternal UPD3. We hypothesized that this mixed UPD3 resulted from two crossover events during maternal meiosis I, followed by a non-disjunction event. This meiotic error led to a combination of isodisomy and heterodisomy on chromosome 3. Following fertilization, the zygote was likely trisomic for chromosome 3. Trisomy rescue likely represents the mechanism by which this aneuploid zygote reverted to euploidy (24). Critically, trisomy rescue can result in a condition known as CPM, where the trisomic cell line is eliminated from the fetal lineage but persists in the placenta. During the blastocyst stage, the extra chromosome is lost in embryonic progenitor cells via mitotic division, while trisomy 3 persists in placental progenitor cells, resulting in a trisomy placenta (25). Given that circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood primarily originates from placental trophoblastic cells (26, 27), this CPM provides the most plausible explanation for the initial NIPT result indicating trisomy 3 in this case, rather than technical errors, low-quality samples, or negligence.
Given that maternal UPD3 can unmask recessive alleles within the ROH segments, we analyzed the trio-WGS data for potential pathogenic homozygous variants. Trio-WGS revealed the simultaneous detection of homozygous c.2497G>C (p.Ala833Pro) variant in the PLXNA1 gene (GRCh37:3:126733111). This variant falls within the maternal ROH segment spanning 3p11.1q22.2 (90,600,000–135,600,000). The mother was confirmed to be a heterozygous carrier. The variant, located in the plexin-semaphorin-integrin (PSI) domain, has not been previously reported in major public databases (GnomAD, ClinVar, HGMD, ExAC). In silico predictions for this variant were inconsistent: SIFT predicted it as deleterious, and it showed evolutionary conservation (GERP score 3.39), whereas some other algorithms suggested a polymorphic nature. A 3D modeling of protein structure indicated a potential impact on protein function. According to the ACMG/AMP guidelines, the variant was classified as VUS (10, 28). Thus, while the variant is a suspected contributing factor to the fetal phenotype, it cannot be definitively rated as likely pathogenic or pathogenic at this stage.
The fetal clinical features included FGR, abnormalities of the nervous system and vasculature, partially overlapping with the spectrum of Dworschak–Punetha neurodevelopmental syndrome, a novel neurodevelopmental disorder with developmental delay, brain and eye anomalies associated with PLXNA1 variants. The PLXNA1 gene encodes plexin A1, a transmembrane protein highly expressed in the developing nervous system. Plexins form complexes with Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) and function as receptors for class 3 semaphorins, key molecules in axonal guidance (29, 30). Their cytoplasmic domain contains segments homologous to GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), forming a functional GAP domain (31), underscoring their crucial role in developmental signaling, particularly in the nervous and vascular systems.
Clinically, phenotypes linked to PLXNA1 mutations are variable, encompassing neurological, ocular, and cutaneous manifestations, global developmental delay, brain imaging abnormalities, and dysmorphic ventricles. To date, rare biallelic and monoallelic de novo PLXNA1 variants have been reported. Dworschak et al. (32) described four families with biallelic and three with monoallelic de novo variants. Shared core features among these cases include global developmental delay, brain anomalies, and eye malformations, with seizures being more common in individuals with monoallelic mutations. Morpholino knockdown of zebrafish homologs (plxna1a and plxna1b) results in central nervous system and ocular anomalies, mirroring patient presentations.
Notably, a left CDH was observed in the fetus—a phenotype not currently associated with PLXNA1 variants. CDH is a rare developmental defect of the diaphragm with an estimated livebirth incidence of 1/2,500–1/3,000 (33). Approximately 30%−50% of CDH cases are complex, often co-occurring with structural, chromosomal, and/or monogenic disorders (34). A meta-analysis of 5,927 CDH cases reported a 10% rate of genetic abnormalities, including 7.3% chromosomal anomalies (e.g., T18, T13, T21) and 2.7% monogenic syndromes (e.g., Fryns syndrome, Cornelia de Lange syndrome) (35). In this case, CMA ruled out chromosomal aneuploidies and pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs >100 kb. WGS also excluded variants in known CDH-associated monogenic syndromes. Therefore, the CDH in this case may represent a novel phenotypic expansion of PLXNA1-related disorders, or it could result from an unrecognized recessive variant in another CDH-associated gene, or from a homozygous variant in an as-yet-unknown gene on chromosome 3 contributing to the overall clinical phenotype.
5 Limitations of the study
This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the diagnosis of CPM remains presumptive due to the unavailability of placental tissue for direct molecular analysis. Second, the assessment of the functional impact of the PLXNA1 variant lacked validation through biochemical or cellular experiments, which constitutes a major limitation of this work.
6 Conclusions
This study reports a case of mixed maternal UPD3, suggesting that uniparental disomy may be a potential mechanism for unmasking recessive disorders. These findings indicate that comprehensive genomic analysis is crucial for achieving accurate diagnosis and genetic counseling when non-invasive prenatal testing and chromosomal microarray analysis yield discordant results.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/supplementary material.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University Ethics Committee (No: KY-2025-382-01). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
YY: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. XW: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft. YH: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. HN: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. ZZh: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. FT: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. ZZo: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing. QF: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. ZC: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. XT: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. XH: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by Shenzhen Science and technology Program (Grant No. RCBS20231211090700001 to XW).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
T3: Trisomy 3; NIPT: noninvasive prenatal testing; UPD: uniparental disomy; hetUPD: heterodisomy uniparental disomy; isoUPD: isodisomy uniparental disomy; matUPD: maternal uniparental disomy; patUPD: paternal uniparental disomy; FGR: fetal growth restriction; CfDNA: Cell-free DNA; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; CNVs: copy number variants; CMA: chromosomal microarray analysis; WGS: Whole Genome Sequencing; SNVs: single nucleotide variants; SNP: single nucleotide polymorphism; ROH: runs of homozygosity; VUS: variant of uncertain significance; ACMG: Medical Genetics and Genomics.
References
1.
Ali TM Mateu-Brull E Balaguer N Dantas C Borges HR de Oliveira M et al . Inherited unbalanced reciprocal translocation with 3q duplication and 5p deletion in a foetus revealed by cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) testing: a case report. Eur J Med Res. (2021) 26:64. doi: 10.1186/s40001-021-00535-5
2.
Hu T Wang J Zhu Q Zhang Z Hu R Xiao L et al . Clinical experience of noninvasive prenatal testing for rare chromosome abnormalities in singleton pregnancies. Front Genet. (2022) 13:955694. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.955694
3.
Liehr T . Uniparental disomy is a chromosomic disorder in the first place. Mol Cytogenet. (2022) 15:5. doi: 10.1186/s13039-022-00585-2
4.
Yakoreva M Kahre T Zordania R Reinson K Teek R Tillmann V et al . A retrospective analysis of the prevalence of imprinting disorders in Estonia from 1998 to 2016. Eur J Hum Genet. (2019) 27:1649–58. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0446-x
5.
Del GD Shinawi M Astbury C Tayeh MK Deak KL Raca G . Diagnostic testing for uniparental disomy: a points to consider statement from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. (2020) 22:1133–41. doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0782-9
6.
Liehr T . Cytogenetic contribution to uniparental disomy (UPD). Mol Cytogenet. (2010) 3:8. doi: 10.1186/1755-8166-3-8
7.
Yamazawa K Ogata T Ferguson-Smith AC . Uniparental disomy and human disease: an overview. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. (2010) 154C:329–34. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30270
8.
Chen Y Chen Y Shi C Huang Z Zhang Y Li S et al . SOAPnuke: a MapReduce acceleration-supported software for integrated quality control and preprocessing of high-throughput sequencing data. Gigascience. (2018) 7:1–06. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix120
9.
McKenna A Hanna M Banks E Sivachenko A Cibulskis K Kernytsky A et al . The Genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. (2010) 20:1297–303. doi: 10.1101/gr.107524.110
10.
Richards S Aziz N Bale S Bick D Das S Gastier-Foster J et al . Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. (2015) 17:405–24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
11.
Abramson J Adler J Dunger J Evans R Green T Pritzel A et al . Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature. (2024) 630:493–500. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w
12.
Nakka P Pattillo SS O'Donnell-Luria AH McManus KF Mountain JL Ramachandran S et al . Characterization of prevalence and health consequences of uniparental disomy in four million individuals from the general population. Am J Hum Genet. (2019) 105:921–32. doi: 10.1101/540955
13.
Schollen E Grunewald S Keldermans L Albrecht B Korner C Matthijs G . CDG-Id caused by homozygosity for an ALG3 mutation due to segmental maternal isodisomy UPD3(q213-qter). Eur J Med Genet. (2005) 48:153–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2005.01.002
14.
Hoffman TL Blanco E Lane A Galvin-Parton P Gadi I Santer R et al . Glucose metabolism and insulin secretion in a patient with ABCC8 mutation and Fanconi-Bickel syndrome caused by maternal isodisomy of chromosome 3. Clin Genet. (2007) 71:551–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2007.00802.x
15.
Fassihi H Lu L Wessagowit V Ozoemena LC Jones CA Dopping-Hepenstal PJ et al . Complete maternal isodisomy of chromosome 3 in a child with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa but no other phenotypic abnormalities. J Invest Dermatol. (2006) 126:2039–43. doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5700348
16.
King JE Dexter A Gadi I Zvereff V Martin M Bloom M et al . Maternal uniparental isodisomy causing autosomal recessive GM1 gangliosidosis: a clinical report. J Genet Couns. (2014) 23:734–41. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9720-9
17.
Tahara U Ono N Aoki S Kawai T Nakabayashi K Hata K . et al. Case of autosomal recessive woolly hair/hypotrichosis with a homozygous c.736T>a mutation of LIPH caused by maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 3. J Dermatol. (2020) 47:e393–94. doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.15550
18.
Kopp J Has C Hotz A Grunert SC Fischer J . Maternal isodisomy of chromosome 3 combined with a de novo mutation in the ABHD5 gene causes autosomal recessive Chanarin–Dorfman syndrome. Genes. (2021) 12:1164. doi: 10.3390/genes12081164
19.
Matejas V Muscheites J Wigger M Kreutzer HJ Nizze H Zenker M . Paternal isodisomy of chromosome 3 unmasked by autosomal recessive microcoria-congenital nephrosis syndrome (Pierson syndrome) in a child with no other phenotypic abnormalities. Am J Med Genet A. (2011) 155A:2601–04. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34214
20.
Myers KA Bennett MF Chow CW Carden SM Mandelstam SA Bahlo M et al . Mosaic uniparental disomy results in GM1 gangliosidosis with normal enzyme assay. Am J Med Genet A. (2018) 176:230–34. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.38549
21.
Andolfo I Martone S Ribersani M Bianchi S Manna F Genesio R et al . Apparent recessive inheritance of sideroblastic anemia type 2 due to uniparental isodisomy at the SLC25a38 locus. Haematologica. (2020) 105:2883–86. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2020.258533
22.
Xiao P Liu P Weber JL Papasian CJ Recker RR Deng HW . Paternal uniparental isodisomy of the entire chromosome 3 revealed in a person with no apparent phenotypic disorders. Hum Mutat. (2006) 27:133–37. doi: 10.1002/humu.20302
23.
Bu X Li X Zhou S Shi L Jiang X Peng C et al . Prenatal diagnosis of complete paternal uniparental isodisomy for chromosome 3: a case report. Mol Cytogenet. (2021) 14:50. doi: 10.1186/s13039-021-00569-8
24.
Rodriguez-Santiago B Malats N Rothman N Armengol L Garcia-Closas M Kogevinas M et al . Mosaic uniparental disomies and aneuploidies as large structural variants of the human genome. Am J Hum Genet. (2010) 87:129–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.06.002
25.
Kapaya H Ikhena SE Brookman MJ . Trisomy 3 confined placental mosaicism: a management dilemma. J Obstet Gynaecol. (2012) 32:696–98. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2012.703262
26.
Zhang Y Xu H Zhang W Liu K . Non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of trisomy 13, 18, and 21 and sex chromosome aneuploidies in 68,763 cases. Front Genet. (2022) 13:864076. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.864076
27.
Dungan JS Klugman S Darilek S Malinowski J Akkari Y Monaghan KG et al . Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities in a general-risk population: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. (2023) 25:100336. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.11.004
28.
Brnich SE Rivera-Mu Oz EA Berg JS . Quantifying the potential of functional evidence to reclassify variants of uncertain significance in the categorical and Bayesian interpretation frameworks. Hum Mutat. (2018) 39:1531–41. doi: 10.1002/humu.23609
29.
Takahashi T Fournier A Nakamura F Wang LH Murakami Y Kalb RG et al . Plexin-neuropilin-1 complexes form functional semaphorin-3a receptors. Cell. (1999) 99:59–69. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80062-8
30.
Tamagnone L Artigiani S Chen H He Z Ming GI Song H et al . Plexins are a large family of receptors for transmembrane, secreted, and GPI-anchored semaphorins in vertebrates. Cell. (1999) 99:71–80. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80063-X
31.
St Clair RM Emerson SE D'Elia KP Weir ME Schmoker AM Ebert AM et al . Fyn-dependent phosphorylation of PlexinA1 and PlexinA2 at conserved tyrosines is essential for zebrafish eye development. FEBS J. (2018) 285:72–86. doi: 10.1111/febs.14313
32.
Dworschak GC Punetha J Kalanithy JC Mingardo E Erdem HB Akdemir ZC et al . Biallelic and monoallelic variants in PLXNA1 are implicated in a novel neurodevelopmental disorder with variable cerebral and eye anomalies. Genet Med. (2021) 23:1715–25. doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01196-9
33.
Gupta VS Harting MT Lally PA Miller CC Hirschl RB Davis CF et al . Mortality in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a multicenter registry study of over 5000 patients over 25 years. Ann Surg. (2023) 277:520–27. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005113
34.
Wagner R Montalva L Zani A Keijzer R . Basic and translational science advances in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Perinatol. (2020) 44:151170. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2019.07.009
35.
Paoletti M Raffler G Gaffi MS Antounians L Lauriti G Zani A . Prevalence and risk factors for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a global view. J Pediatr Surg. (2020) 55:2297–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.06.022
36.
Srebniak M Noomen P dos Santos P Halley D van de Graaf R Govaerts L et al . An incomplete trisomy 3 rescue resulting in a marker chromosome and UPD(3)–difficulties in interpretation. Prenat Diagn. (2008) 28:967–70. doi: 10.1002/pd.2077
Summary
Keywords
NIPT, trio-CMA, trio-WGS, mixed UPD3, PLXNA1
Citation
Ye Y, Wang X, He Y, Ning H, Zhang Z, Tao F, Zou Z, Fang Q, Chen Z, Tian X and Hao X (2026) Maternal mixed UPD3 and a homozygous PLXNA1 c.2497G>C variant in a fetus with severe anomalies. Front. Med. 12:1712148. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1712148
Received
24 September 2025
Revised
22 December 2025
Accepted
29 December 2025
Published
23 January 2026
Volume
12 - 2025
Edited by
Gloria Queipo, NanoLab Molecular Diagnosis, Mexico
Reviewed by
Sara Mumtaz, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Pakistan
Lilian Reyes Morales, National Institute of Pediatrics (Mexico), Mexico
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Ye, Wang, He, Ning, Zhang, Tao, Zou, Fang, Chen, Tian and Hao.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xiaohui Tian, tianxiaohui@sysush.com; Xiulan Hao, haoxiulan@sysush.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.