4.2 Article

A study of reciprocal translocations and inversions detected by light microscopy with special reference to origin, segregation, and recurrent abnormalities

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS PART A
卷 126A, 期 1, 页码 46-60

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20553

关键词

translocations; inversions; origin; segregation; recurrent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed 448 independently ascertained reciprocal translocations and 220 inversions referred to our diagnostic laboratory. Twenty-eight percent of the translocations and 8.5% of the inversions arose de novo, the proportion being influenced by the method of ascertainment. It was highest, 47%, among translocations ascertained through an abnormal phenotype. With the exception of the 3:1 unbalanced segregants, the remainders were equally likely to have been paternally or maternally inherited. The segregation from balanced translocation and inversion carriers showed an equal number of offspring with a normal chromosome constitution and with a balanced rearrangement. The number of unbalanced segregants among the translocations was 2.7% where the proband was balanced, and 19.2% where the proband was unbalanced. There was only a single unbalanced inversion. A search for recurring translocations showed only the well documented t(11;22) to occur with unusual frequency in our series and those of others, and we concluded that the few other translocations that were seen on more than one occasion were likely to be identical by descent (IBD). Similarly the majority of the recurring inversions, with the exception of common variants, seemed likely to be IBD. However, eight inversions recurred in our data and in most other series and may well be genuine independent rearrangements. A search of the known olfactory receptor (OR) loci and duplicons suggested that such sequences did not form an important contribution to the breakpoints of recurring rearrangements detected by light microscopy. (C) 2003 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