4.2 Article

Fine-mapping subtelomeric deletions and duplications by comparative genomic hybridization in 42 individuals

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 146A, 期 6, 页码 730-739

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32216

关键词

subtelomere; telomere; comparative genomic hybridization (CGH); array; copy number variation (CNV)

资金

  1. NHGRI NIH HHS [HG00567] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [P50 HL074731] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human subtelomere regions contain numerous gene-rich segments and are susceptible to germline rearrangements. The availability of diagnostic test kits to detect subtelomeric rearrangements has resulted in the diagnosis of numerous abnormalities with clinical implications including congenital heart abnormalities and mental retardation. Several of these have been described as clinically recognizable syndromes (e.g., deletion of 1p, 3p, Sq, 6p, 9q, and 22q). Given this, fine-mapping of subtelomeric breakpoints is of increasing importance to the assessment of genotype-phenotype correlations in these recognized syndromes as well as to the identification of additional syndromes. We developed a BAC and cosmid-based DNA array (TEL array) with high-resolution coverage of 10 Mb-sized subtelomeric regions, and used it to analyze 42 samples from unrelated patients with subtelomeric rearrangements whose breakpoints were previously either unmapped or mapped at a lower resolution than that achievable with the TEL array. Six apparently recurrent subtelomeric breakpoint loci were localized to genomic regions containing segmental duplication, copy number variation, and sequence gaps. Small (1 Mb or less) candidate gene regions for clinical phenotypes in separate patients were identified for 3p, 6q, 9q, and 10p deletions as well as for a 19q duplication. In addition to fine-mapping nearly all of the expected breakpoints, several previously unidentified rearrangements were detected. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.2
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