4.6 Article

High Frequency Of Submicroscopic Chromosomal Deletions in Patients with Idiopathic Congenital Eye Malformations

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 151, Issue 6, Pages 1087-1094

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.11.025

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN, LEUVEN, BELGIUM [EO/08/24]
  2. IWT, Belgium [SBO-60848, GOA/2006/12]
  3. SymBioSys Center of Excellence, Research Council, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium [EF/05/007]
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain [PS09/00459]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the array comparative genomic hybridization technique for the genetic analysis of patients with congenital ocular malformations. DESIGN: Laboratory investigation. METHODS: This was a multicenter study. Samples were collected from 37 patients with negative results for the routine diagnostic work-up, including normal karyotype and mutation analysis of appropriate genes. Samples from both parents also were tested. High-resolution genome-wide Agilent 244K oligoarray (Agilent Technologies) was applied. Confirmation of the results was obtained with independent techniques. RESULTS: Causal deletions were identified in 5 (13%) patients, affecting OTX2, FOXC1 and VPS13B (COH1), the downstream regulatory region of PAX6, and a 1,5 Megabases de novo deletion on chromosome 16. CONCLUSIONS: This high frequency of causal submicroscopic chromosomal aberrations in patients with congenital ocular malformation warrants implementation of array comparative genomic hybridization in the diagnostic work-up of these patients. Moreover, this screening technique broadens the phenotypic and mutational spectrum associated with genes known to cause congenital ocular malformation. (Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151:1087-1094. (C) 2011 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available