A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
Method Article
Hydatidiform moles are abnormal human pregnancies with heterogeneous aetiologies that can be classified according to their morphological features and parental contribution to the molar genomes. Here, protocols of multiplex microsatellite DNA genotyping and flow cytometry of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded molar tissues are described in detail, together with results’ interpretation and integration.
Hydatidiform mole (HM) is an abnormal human pregnancy characterized by excessive trophoblastic proliferation and abnormal embryonic development. There are two types of HM based on microscopic morphological evaluation, complete HM (CHM) and partial HM (PHM). These can be further subdivided based on the parental contribution to the molar genomes. Such characterization of HM, by morphology and genotype analyses, is crucial for patient management and for the fundamental understanding of this intriguing pathology. It is well documented that morphological analysis of HM is subject to wide interobserver variability and is not sufficient on its own to accurately classify HM into CHM and PHM and distinguish them from hydropic non-molar abortions. Genotyping analysis is mostly performed on DNA and tissues from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) products of conception, which have less than optimal quality and may consequently lead to wrong conclusions. In this article, detailed protocols for multiplex genotyping and flow cytometry analyses of FFPE molar tissues are provided, along with the interpretation of the results of these methods, their troubleshooting, and integration with the morphological evaluation, p57KIP2 immunohistochemistry, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to reach a correct and robust diagnosis. Here, the authors share the methods and lessons learned in the past 10 years from the analysis of approximately 400 products of conception.
A hydatidiform mole (HM) is an abnormal human pregnancy characterized by abnormal embryonic development, hyperproliferation of the trophoblast, and hydropic degeneration of chorionic villi (CV). Historically, HM used to be divided into two types, complete HM (CHM) and partial HM (PHM) based only on morphological evaluation1. However, it has been shown that morphological evaluation alone is not sufficient to classify HM into the two subtypes (CHM and PHM) and distinguish them from non-molar miscarriages2,3,4.
Because CHM and PHM have different propensities to malignancies, it is therefore important to accurately determine the genotypic type of HM to provide appropriate follow-up and management to the patients. Consequently, in the past decades, several methodologies have been developed and evolved for the purpose of identifying the parental contribution to the molar tissues and reaching a correct classification of HM. These include karyotype analysis, chromosomal banding polymorphism, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) serological typing, restriction fragment length polymorphism, variable number of tandem repeats, microsatellite genotyping, flow cytometry, and p57KIP2 immunohistochemistry. This has allowed accurate subdivision of HM conceptions based on the parental contribution to their genomes, as follows: CHM, which are diploid androgenetic monospermic or diploid androgenetic dispermic, and PHM, which are triploid, dispermic in 99% and monospermic in 1% of the cases5,6,7,8. Furthermore, there is another genotypic type of HM that emerged in the past two decades, which is diploid biparental. The latter is mostly recurrent and may affect a single family member (simplex cases) or at least two family members (familial cases). These diploid biparental moles are mostly caused by recessive mutations in NLRP7 or KHDC3L in the patients9,10,11,12. Diploid biparental HM in patients with recessive mutations in NLRP7 may be diagnosed as CHM or PHM by morphological analysis and this appears to be associated with the severity of the mutations in the patients13,14. In addition to the classification of HM according to their genotypes, the introduction and use of several genotyping methods allowed the distinction of the various molar entities from non-molar miscarriages, such as aneuploid diploid biparental conceptions and other types of conceptions5,15. Such conceptions may have some trophoblast proliferation and abnormal villous morphology that mimic, to some extent, some morphological features of HM.
The purpose of this article is to provide detailed protocols for multiplex genotyping and flow cytometry of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, and comprehensive analyses of the results of these methods and their integration with other methods for correct and conclusive diagnosis of molar tissues.
This research study was approved by the McGill Institutional Review Board. All patients provided written consent to participate in the study and to have their FFPE products of conception (POCs) retrieved from various pathology departments.
NOTE: While there are several methods for genotyping and ploidy determination by flow cytometry, the protocols provided here describe one method of analysis using one platform for each.
1. Genotyping
Reagent | Quantity |
Eosin Y stock solution (1%) | 250 mL |
80% Ethanol | 750 mL |
Glacial Acetic Acid (Concentrated) | 5 mL |
Table 1: Eosin Y working solution (0.25%) preparation.
Reagent used (100 mL per bin) | Duration |
1) Xylene | 5 min |
2) Xylene | 5 min |
3) 100% Ethanol | 2 min |
4) 95% Ethanol | 2 min |
5) 70% Ethanol | 2 min |
6) 50% Ethanol | 2 min |
7) Distilled water | 5 min |
8) Hematoxylin | 4 min |
9) Distilled water | 5 min |
10) Eosin | 1 min |
11) 95% Ethanol | 5 min |
12) 100% Ethanol | 5 min |
13) Xylene | 5 min |
14) Xylene | 5 min |
Table 2: Reagents and durations for the H&E staining protocol.
Figure 1: Representative slide for genotyping. Top: A slide that needs to be "cleaned" to become free of maternal tissues. Bottom: The same slide shown after it has been cleaned and now contains nothing but CV for DNA extraction. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Representative slide for genotyping. Top: A slide that needs to be "cleaned" to become free of maternal tissues. Bottom: The same slide shown after it has been cleaned and now contains nothing but CV for DNA extraction. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Representative gel for DNA quantification. Included are the concentrations of each DNA, as measured using a spectrophotometer, and the quantities used for the multiplex PCR. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: PCR cycle conditions for the multiplex STR system. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Screenshot showing the Size Standard Editor. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
2. Flow Cytometry
Figure 6: H&E section representing a POC block that is ideal for flow cytometry. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 7: H&E section representing a more difficult block for flow cytometry. This representative H&E section shows that only the bottom half of this section should be used for flow cytometry analysis, with the goal of enriching for the CV. The outlined area, labelled "CV," is mostly made up of CV. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Reagent used (6 mL each) | Duration |
1) Xylene | 2 x 10 min |
2) 100% Ethanol | 2 x 10 min |
3) 95% Ethanol | 10 min |
4) 70% Ethanol | 10 min |
5) 50% Ethanol | 10 min |
6) Distilled water | 2 x 10 min |
Table 3: Reagents and durations for deparaffinization and rehydration.
Figure 8: Screenshot displaying a histogram and a dot plot of a representative sample that is ungated (A) and gated (B). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The complexity of molar tissues and the fact that they may have various genotypes necessitates stringent analysis and the use of several methods such as morphological evaluation, p57 immunohistochemistry, microsatellite genotyping, flow cytometry, and FISH. For example, one patient (1790) was referred with two PHM that were found to be triploid by microarray analysis of the POCs only. The patient was therefore diagnosed with recurrent PHM. Microsatellite genotyping of her two "PHM"...
HM are abnormal human pregnancies with heterogeneous etiologies and have different histological and genotypic types, which makes their accurate classification and diagnosis challenging. Histopathological morphological evaluation was often proven inaccurate and is therefore unreliable on its own to classify HM into CHM and PHM and distinguish them from non-molar miscarriages. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis of HM requires the use of other methods such as multiplex microsatellite DNA genotyping, ploidy analysis by flow cy...
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors thank Sophie Patrier and Marianne Parésy for sharing the original flow cytometry protocol, and Promega and Qiagen for providing supplies and reagents. This work was supported by the Réseau Québécois en Reproduction and the Canadian Institute for Health Research (MOP-130364) to R.S.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
BD FACS Canto II | BD BioSciences | 338960 | |
Capillary electrophoresis instrument: Genomes Applied Biosystems 3730xl DNA Analyzer | Applied biosystems | 313001R | Service offered by the Centre for Applied Genomics (http://www.tcag.ca) |
Citric acid | Sigma | 251275 | |
Cytoseal 60, histopathology mounting medium | Fisher | 23244257 | |
Eosin Y stock solution (1%) | Fisher | SE23-500D | |
FCSalyzer - flow cytometry analysis software | SourceForge | - | https://sourceforge.net/projects/fcsalyzer/ |
FFPE Qiagen kit | Qiagen | 80234 | |
Forceps | Fine Science Tools | 11295-51 | For sectioning and for the cleaning process |
Glacial Acetic Acid (Concentrated) | Sigma | A6283-500mL | |
Glass coverslips: Cover Glass | Fisher | 12-541a | |
Hematoxylin | Fisher | CS401-1D | |
Highly deionized formamide: Hi-Di Formamide | Thermofisher | 4311320 | |
IHC platform: Benchmark Ultra | Roche | - | |
Kimwipes | Ultident | 30-34120 | |
Microtome | Leica | RM2135 | |
Microtome blades | Fisher | 12-634-1C | |
Nitex filtering mesh, 48 microns | Filmar | 74011 | http://www.filmar.qc.ca/index.php?filet=produits&id=51&lang=en ; any other filter is suitable, but this is an inexpensive and effective option from a non-research company |
p57 antibody | Cell Marque | 457M | |
Pasteur pipette | VWR | 53499-632 | |
PCR machine | Perkin Elmer, Applied Biosystems | GeneAmp PCR System 9700 | |
PeakScanner 1.0 | Applied Biosystems | 4381867 | Software for genotyping analysis. |
Pepsin from porcine gastric mucosa | Sigma | P7012 | |
Polystyrene round-bottom tubes | BD Falcon | 352058 | |
Positively charged slides: Superfrost Plus 25x75mm | Fisher | 1255015 | |
PowerPlex 16 HS System | Promega Corporation | DC2102 | |
Propidium Iodide | Sigma | P4864 | |
Ribonuclease A from bovine pancreas | Sigma | R4875 | |
Separation matrix: POP-7 Polymer | Thermofisher | 4352759 | |
UltraPure Agarose | Fisher | 16500-500 | |
Xylene | Fisher | X3P1GAL |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved