4.5 Article

Interstitial deletion of 10p and atrial septal defect in DiGeorge 2 syndrome

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 128-136

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00290.x

关键词

atrial septal defect; critical region; deletion 10p; DiGeorge 2 syndrome; NEBL

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD24064, P01 HD39420] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present molecular genetic investigations of a 4-year-old boy with craniofacial dysmorphism and developmental delay. Trivial mitral and tricuspid regurgitation without gross structural abnormality was diagnosed by echocardiography. High-resolution chromosome analysis revealed an interstitial deletion, del(10)(p12.1p12.32). To characterize the deletion size and breakpoints, we performed fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis using 27 BAC clones. Our data demonstrate an approximately 5.5 Mb deletion del(10)(p12.1p12.31). Surprisingly, the BAC clone RP11-56H7 that contains NEBL, an apparent downstream gene of the cardiogenic transcription factor HAND2 previously shown to be deleted in the patients with DiGeorge 2 syndrome and 10p13 deletion, was deleted in our patient with 10p12.1-p12.31 deletion. In addition, we provide clinical data and results of molecular analysis for a patient with multiple congenital anomalies including Ebstein's anomaly, kidney malformations, and 10p13-p14 deletion. We also reviewed 19 patients with congenital heart defects and deletions involving 10p and propose that atrial septal defect (ASD) is a common cardiac anomaly associated with DiGeorge 2 syndrome. Based on genotype-phenotype analysis of published patients and those reported herein, we propose an approximately 1.0 Mb critical region between loci D10S547 and D10S2176 in 10p14 to be associated with ASD. Considering that septal defects are the most frequent congenital heart anomaly, we suggest that further investigations in the 10p critical region are important to identify gene(s) responsible for this common birth defect.

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

4.5
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