4.7 Article

FISH mapping of de novo apparently balanced chromosome rearrangements identifies characteristics associated with phenotypic abnormality

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 82, 期 4, 页码 916-926

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.02.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U127561093, MC_U127527199] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [MC_U127527199, MC_U127561093] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527199, MC_U127561093] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) mapping of 152, mostly de novo, apparently balanced chromosomal rearrangement (ABCR) breakpoints in 76 individuals, 30 of whom had no obvious phenotypic abnormality (control group) and 46 of whom had an associated disease (case group). The aim of this study was to identify breakpoint characteristics that could discriminate between these groups and which might be of predictive value in de novo ABCR (DN-ABCR) cases detected antenatally. We found no difference in the proportion of breakpoints that interrupted a gene, although in three cases, direct interruption or deletion of known autosomal-dominant or X-linked recessive Mendelian disease genes was diagnostic. The only significant predictor of phenotypic abnormality in the group as a whole was the localization of one or both breakpoints to an R-positive (G-negative) band with estimated predictive values of 0.69 (95% CL 0.54-0.81) and 0.90 (95% CL 0.60-0.98), respectively. R-positive bands are known to contain more genes and have a higher guanine-cytosine (GC) content than do G-positive (R-negative) bands; however, whether a gene was interrupted by the breakpoint or the GC content in the 200kB around the breakpoint had no discriminant ability. Our results suggest that the large-scale genomic context of the breakpoint has prognostic utility and that the pathological mechanism of mapping to an R-band cannot be accounted for by direct gene inactivation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据