An article recently published in Advanced Science reviews current knowledge and diagnostic challenges in the study of microchimerism, a biological phenomenon in which a small number of genetically distinct cells become part of the body.
Microchimerism most commonly occurs during pregnancy, when cells pass between mother and fetus in both directions. These cells can remain in the body for years or even decades and have been detected in many tissues, including blood, skin, and brain. Microchimerism can also arise through twinning, blood transfusion, or organ and stem cell transplantation.
Although microchimeric cells have been linked to both health and disease, the authors emphasize that their detection remains a major challenge for laboratories. These cells are extremely rare, often making up far less than one percent of all cells in a sample, and in some cases occurring at frequencies as low as one cell among millions. As a result, standard diagnostic techniques may fail to detect them or produce inconsistent results.
To identify priorities for the field, the authors surveyed 29 experts and compiled a list of 63 key research questions, which they grouped into seven themes. One of the most prominent themes focuses on detection methods. Many studies rely on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques that detect sex-specific DNA, such as Y-chromosome sequences in female samples. While sensitive, this approach cannot be applied in all cases and may bias results toward male-derived cells.
The review also highlights the lack of reliable markers that can consistently distinguish microchimeric cells from host cells. Alternative methods, including human leukocyte antigen mismatching, fluorescence in situ hybridization, immunohistochemistry, and single-cell sequencing, can provide additional information but vary in sensitivity, specificity, cost, and practicality for routine use.
Another challenge is the absence of standardized definitions and reporting criteria. The term “microchimerism” is used inconsistently across studies, and there is no agreed-upon threshold for what constitutes a positive finding. Differences in tissue sampling, assay design, and data analysis further complicate interpretation and comparison between studies.
The authors also note broader limitations that affect diagnostic research, including small study populations, limited animal models, and ethical constraints related to pregnancy and maternal–fetal research. Many of these challenges overlap with those seen in other areas of rare-cell detection, such as minimal residual disease testing and transplant monitoring.
Rather than presenting new experimental data, the article aims to provide a framework to guide future research and improve diagnostic approaches. It highlights the need for careful assay validation, awareness of methodological bias, and cautious interpretation when working with extremely rare cell populations.
Newsletters
Receive the latest pathologist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
