4.7 Article

Physical map of 1p36, placement of breakpoints in monosomy 1p36, and clinical characterization of the syndrome

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 72, 期 5, 页码 1200-1212

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/375179

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00188, M01 RR000188] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [P30 HD24064, P01 HD039420, P30 HD024064, P01 HD39420] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDCD NIH HHS [F32 DC000169, K08 DC00163] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monosomy 1p36 is the most common terminal deletion syndrome. This contiguous gene deletion syndrome is presumably caused by haploinsufficiency of a number of genes. We have constructed a contig of overlapping large-insert clones for the most distal 10.5 Mb of 1p36, evaluated the deletion sizes in 61 subjects with monosomy 1p36 from 60 families, and created a natural deletion panel. We found pure terminal deletions, interstitial deletions, derivative chromosomes, and more complex rearrangements. Breakpoints were binned into 0.5-Mb regions. Analyses revealed some clustering of breakpoints but no single common breakpoint. Determination of the parental origin showed that 60% of de novo 1p36 terminal deletions arose from the maternally inherited chromosome. Of the 61 subjects, 30 were examined systematically through a protocol at the Texas Children's Hospital General Clinical Research Center. Specifically, we report hearing evaluations, palatal and ophthalmological examinations, echocardiograms, neurological assessments, and thyroid function tests. To our knowledge, this systematic molecular and clinical characterization of monosomy 1p36 is the largest and most comprehensive study of this deletion syndrome to date. Many cytogenetically visible, apparent terminal deletions are more complex than anticipated by cytogenetics, as revealed at the molecular level by our study. Our clinical findings allow for the more accurate recognition of the syndrome and for proper medical evaluation.

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