4.6 Article

Further delineation of novel 1p36 rearrangements by array-CGH analysis: Narrowing the breakpoints and clarifying the extended phenotype

期刊

GENE
卷 506, 期 2, 页码 360-368

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2012.06.060

关键词

Microdeletion; Microduplication; 1p36; array-CGH; Phenotypic variability; Developmental Delay

资金

  1. Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, Athens, Greece

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High resolution oligonucleotide array Comparative Genome Hybridization technology (array-CGH) has greatly assisted the recognition of the 1p36 contiguous gene deletion syndrome. The 1p36 deletion syndrome is considered to be one of the most common subtelomeric microdeletion syndromes and has an incidence of similar to 1 in 5000 live births, while respectively the pure 1p36 microduplication has not been reported so far. We present seven new patients who were referred for genetic evaluation due to Developmental Delay (DD), Mental Retardation (MR), and distinct dysmorphic features. They all had a wide phenotypic spectrum. In all cases previous standard karyotypes were negative. Array-CGH analysis revealed five patients with interstitial 1p36 microdeletion (four de novo and one maternal) and two patients with de novo reciprocal duplication of different sizes. These were the first reported pure 1p36 microduplication cases so far. Three of our patients carrying the 1p36 microdeletion syndrome were also found to have additional pathogenetic aberrations. These findings (del 3q27.1; del 4q21.22-q22.1; del 16p13.3; dup 21q21.2-q21.3; del Xp22.12) might contribute to the patients' severe phenotype, acting as additional modifiers of their clinical manifestations. We review and compare the clinical and array-CGH findings of our patients to previously reported cases with the aim of clearly delineating more accurate genotype-phenotype correlations for the 1p36 syndrome that could allow for a more precise prognosis. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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