4.2 Article

TBR1 is the Candidate Gene for Intellectual Disability in Patients With a 2q24.2 Interstitial Deletion

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
Volume 164, Issue 3, Pages 828-833

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36363

Keywords

2q24; 2; TBR1; smallest region of overlap; SNP Arrays analysis

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interstitial deletion of 2q24.2 is a rarely described cytogenetic aberration in patients with intellectual disability (ID). Previously reported genotype-phenotype correlation identified a minimum deleted region of 2.65Mb including 15 genes. Recently, a patient with a de novo 2q24.2 microdeletion of 0.4Mb encompassing only three genes was described. However, the precise relationship between most deleted genes and the clinical features remains unclear. Here we describe a 12-year-old male patient diagnosed with growth retardation and ID. He also showed microcephaly, right palpebral ptosis, scapular winging, and pectus excavatum. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) array analysis showed a de novo interstitial deletion of 0.122Mb at 2q24.2 region harboring only TBR1 (T-box, brain, 1; OMIM: 604616), which encodes a T-box family transcription factor expressed in post-mitotic projection neurons and functionally significant in embryologic corticogenesis. This is the first case of a deletion at 2q24.2 involving only TBR1. This finding narrows the smallest region of overlap (SRO) for deletions in this region and strengthens the previously suggested hypothesis that this gene is a strong candidate for the ID phenotype. The identification of TBR1 as candidate for ID encourages further molecular studies to identify novel mutations to understand the pathogenic effects of its haploinsufficiency. Finally, this report provides a review on 10 2q24.2 microdeletion patients. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available