4.2 Article

Microduplication 22q11.2: A benign polymorphism or a syndrome with a very large clinical variability and reduced penetrance? Report of two families

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 146A, 期 6, 页码 758-763

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31910

关键词

microduplication 22q11.2; learning difficulties; behavioral anomalies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report on two unrelated families where the probands presented with learning difficulties and a microduplication 22q11.2. In the first family the proband was a 7-year-old boy who was referred because of psychomotor retardation, behavioral problems, large weight and height, and mild dysmorphism. His father and one brother also had mental retardation and behavioral anomalies, and presented the same microduplication. In the second family only the proband had mild learning difficulties, but the same microduplication 22q11.2 was discovered in her sister, her asymptomatic mother and grandfather. No distinctly recognizable phenotype has been observed in the individuals from our two families diagnosed with microduplication 22q11.2. The marked clinical variability both inter- and intrafamilial, including the presence of a complete normal phenotype and the presence of high intellectual possibilities in two individuals with this microdupllication 22q11.2 is remarkable. So far, 63 patients, corresponding to 35 families, with microduplication 22q11.2 have been described. The fact that microduplication 22q11.2 can be seen in individuals with a normal/near normal phenotype has been previously reported as well. We postulate that the clinical findings described so far could be due to ascertainment bias, since the most common reason for performing FISH 22 analyses is to exclude microdeletion. Future reports are needed to answer the question whether microduplication could be a non-pathogenic polymorphism or whether it is a real syndrome with a very large clinical variability and reduced penetrance. (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