Complex intrachromosomal rearrangement in 1q leading to 1q32.2 microdeletion: a potential role of SRGAP2 in the gyrification of cerebral cortex

BACKGROUND: Van der Woude syndrome (MIM: 119300, VWS) is a dominantly inherited and the most common orofacial clefting syndrome; it accounts for ~2 % of all cleft lip and palate cases. Intellectual disability (ID) is characterized by significant limitations, both in intellectual functioning (cognitive deficit) and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills. Karyotyping has been the first standard test for the detection of genetic imbalance in patients with ID for more than 35 years. Advances in genetic diagnosis have laid chromosomal microarrays (CMA) as a new standard and first first-line test for diagnosis of patients with ID, as well as other conditions, such as autism spectrum disorders or multiple congenital anomalies. ----- CASE PRESENTATION: The present case was initially studied due to unexplained cognitive deficit. Physical examination at the age of 18 years revealed cleft palate, lower lip pits and hypodontia, accompanied with other dysmorphic features and absence of speech. Brain MRI uncovered significantly reduced overall volume of gray matter and cortical gyrification. Banding cytogenetics revealed an indistinct intrachromosomal rearrangement in the long arm of one chromosome 1, and subsequent microarray analyses identified a 5.56 Mb deletion in 1q32.1-1q32.3, encompassing 52 genes; included were the entire IRF6 gene (whose mutations/deletions underlay VWS) and SRGAP2, a gene with an important role in neuronal migration during development of cerebral cortex. Besides, a duplication in 3q26.32 (1.9 Mb in size) comprising TBL1XR1 gene was identified. Multicolor banding for chromosome 1 and molecular cytogenetics applying a battery of locus-specific probes covering 1q32.1 to 1q44 characterized a four breakpoint-insertional-rearrangement-event, resulting in 1q32.1-1q32.3 deletion. ----- CONCLUSIONS: Considering that the human-specific three-fold segmental duplication of SRGAP2 gene evolutionary corresponds to the beginning of neocortical expansion, we hypothesize that aberrations in SRGAP2 are strong candidates underlying specific brain abnormalities, namely reduced volume of grey matter and reduced gyrification

Cytogenetic contribution to uniparental disomy (UPD)

Uniparental disomy (UPD) is often considered as an event to be characterized exclusively by molecular genetic or epigenetic approaches. This review shows that at least one third of UPD cases emerge in connection with or due to a chromosomal rearrangement. Thus, additional (molecular) cytogenetic characterization of UPD cases is essential. Up to now > 1,100 UPD cases detected in clinical, non-tumor cases are reported in the literature. Recently, these cases were summarized in a regularly updated, freely available online database http://www.med.uni-jena.de/fish/sSMC/00START-UPD.htm. Based of this, here the presently known imprinting syndromes, the chromosomal contribution to UPD phenomenon, and the cytogenetic subgroups of UPD, including cases with normal, abnormal balanced or unbalanced karyotype (like e.g. small supernumerary marker chromosomes and Robertsonian translocations) and segmental UPD are reviewed. Furthermore, chromosome fragmentation as a possible mechanism of trisomic rescue is discussed, which might help to explain the observed 1:9 rate of maternal versus paternal UPD present in cases with original trisomic karyotypes. Overall, as UPD is more but an interesting rarity, the genetic background of each "UPD-patient" needs to be characterized besides by molecular methods, also by molecular cytogenetics in detail

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing, What Patients Do Not Learn, May Be Due to Lack of Specialist Genetic Training by Gynecologists and Obstetricians?

Platforms for “non-invasive prenatal testing” (NIPT), or also referred to as “non-invasive prenatal screening” (NIPS) have been available for over 10 years, and are the most recent tools available to obtain information about genetic condition(s) of an unborn child. The highly praised advantage of NIPT-screening is that results can provide early hints on the detection of fetal trisomies and gonosomal numerical aberrations as early as the 10th week of gestation onward, without any need for invasive procedures, such as amniocenteses or alternatives. Understandably, the public along with gynecologists and obstetricians eagerly await these early test results. Their general hope for normal (=negative) test results is also justified, as in >95% of the tested cases such an outcome is to be expected. However, pregnant women can be disappointed and confused, particularly regarding the genetic information and proposed care when the results are positive, and these emotions are also common with false-positive and false-negative NIPT results. Finally, such concerns in understanding the advantages and limitations of this routinely ordered screening tool end up at Clinical Geneticists and Genetic counselors. In this review, general background on NIPT, differences of NIPT platforms, advantages and limitations of NIPT, as well as consequences of insufficient counseling before and after NIPT are summarized. To provide comprehensive care in all pregnancies situations, professionals need a careful attitude toward offering NIPT along with specially training and qualifications in counseling for these procedures. Often it is gynecologists and obstetricians who discuss the use of NIPT with patients; however, although these physicians have a highly qualified background and knowledge in their respective specialty area(s), they may lack specific training on the interpretation of NIPT-screening results. These potential knowledge gaps must be closed quickly and comprehensively by the corresponding scientific societies to ensure optimal patient care

Uniparental disomy is a chromosomic disorder in the first place

Background: Uniparental disomy (UPD) is well-known to be closely intermingled with imprinting disorders. Besides, UPD can lead to a disease by ‘activation’ of a recessive gene mutation or due to incomplete (cryptic) trisomic rescue. Corresponding to all common theories how UPD forms, it takes place as a consequence of a “chromosomic problem”, like an aneuploidy or a chromosomal rearrangement. Nonetheless, UPD is rarely considered as a cytogenetic, but most often as a molecular genetic problem. Results: Here a review on the ~ 4900 published UPD-cases is provided, and even though being biased as discussed in the paper, the following insights have been given from that analysis: (1) the rate of maternal to paternal UPD is 2~3 to 1; (2) at most only ~ 0.03% of the available UPD cases are grasped scientifically, yet; (3) frequencies of single whole-chromosome UPDs are non-random, with UPD(16) and UPD(15) being most frequent in clinically healthy and diseased people, respectively; (4) there is a direct correlation of UPD frequency and known frequent first trimester trisomies, except for chromosomes 1, 5, 11 and 18 (which can be explained); (5) heterodisomy is under- and UPD-mosaicism is over-represented in recent reports; and (6) cytogenetics is not considered enough when a UPD is identified. Conclusions: As UPD is diagnosed using molecular genetic approaches, and thus by specialists considering chromosomes at best as a whim of nature, most UPD reports lack the chromosomal aspect. Here it is affirmed and substantiated by corresponding data that UPD is a chromosomic disorder in the first place and cytogenetic analyses is indicated in each diagnosed UPD-case

False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?

Abstract Background Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has had an incomparable triumph in prenatal diagnostics in the last decade. Over 1400 research articles have been published, predominantly praising the advantages of this test. Methods The present study identified among the 1400 papers 24 original and one review paper, which were suited to re-evaluate the efficacy of > 750,000 published NIPT-results. Special attention was given to false-positive and false-negative result-rates. Those were discussed under different aspects—mainly from a patient-perspective. Results A 27: 1 rate of false-positive compared to false-negative NIPT results was found. Besides, according to all reported, real-positive, chromosomally aberrant NIPT cases, 90% of those would have been aborted spontaneously before birth. These findings are here discussed under aspects like (i) How efficient is NIPT compared to first trimester screening? (ii) What are the differences in expectations towards NIPT from specialists and the public? and (iii) There should also be children born suffering from not by NIPT tested chromosomal aberrations; why are those never reported in all available NIPT studies? Conclusions Even though much research has been published on NIPT, unbiased figures concerning NIPT and first trimester screening efficacy are yet not available. While false positive rates of different NIPT tests maybe halfway accurate, reported false-negative rates are most likely too low. The latter is as NIPT-cases with negative results for tested conditions are yet not in detail followed up for cases with other genetic or teratogenic caused disorders. This promotes an image in public, that NIPT is suited to replace all invasive tests, and also to solve the problem of inborn errors in humans, if not now then in near future. Overall, it is worth discussing the usefulness of NIPT in practical clinical application. Particularly, asking for unbiased figures concerning the efficacy of first trimester-screening compared to NIPT, and for really comprehensive data on false-positive and false-negative NIPT results

Chromosomal Heteromorphisms and Cancer Susceptibility Revisited

Chromosomal heteromorphisms (CHs) are a part of genetic variation in man. The past literature largely posited whether CHs could be correlated with the development of malignancies. While this possibility seemed closed by end of the 1990s, recent data have raised the question again on the potential influences of repetitive DNA elements, the main components of CHs, in cancer susceptibility. Such new evidence for a potential role of CHs in cancer can be found in the following observations: (i) amplification and/or epigenetic alterations of CHs are routinely reported in tumors; (ii) the expression of CH-derived RNA in embryonal and other cells under stress, including cancer cells; (iii) the expression of parts of CH-DNA as long noncoding RNAs; plus (iv) theories that suggest a possible application of the “two-hit model” for euchromatic copy number variants (CNVs). Herein, these points are discussed in detail, which leads to the conclusion that CHs are by far not given sufficient consideration in routine cytogenetic analysis, e.g., leukemias and lymphomas, and need more attention in future research settings including solid tumors. This heightened focus may only be achieved by approaches other than standard sequencing or chromosomal microarrays, as these techniques are at a minimum impaired in their ability to detect, if not blind to, (highly) repetitive DNA sequences

The American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics: advancing the ecosystem

The American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) is focused on developing an end-to-end integrated photonics ecosystem in the U.S., including domestic foundry access, integrated design tools, automated packaging, assembly and test, and workforce development. This paper describes how the institute has been structured to achieve these goals, with an emphasis on advancing the integrated photonics ecosystem. Additionally, it briefly highlights several of the technological development targets that have been identified to provide enabling advances in the manufacture and application of integrated photonics

Four small supernumerary marker chromosomes derived from chromosomes 6, 8, 11 and 12 in a patient with minimal clinical abnormalities: a case report

Introduction: Small supernumerary marker chromosomes are still a problem in cytogenetic diagnostic and genetic counseling. This holds especially true for the rare cases with multiple small supernumerary marker chromosomes. Most such cases are reported to be clinically severely affected due to the chromosomal imbalances induced by the presence of small supernumerary marker chromosomes. Here we report the first case of a patient having four different small supernumerary marker chromosomes which, apart from slight developmental retardation in youth and non-malignant hyperpigmentation, presented no other clinical signs. Case presentation: Our patient was a 30-year-old Caucasian man, delivered by caesarean section because of macrosomy. At birth he presented with bilateral cryptorchidism but no other birth defects. At age of around two years he showed psychomotor delay and a bilateral convergent strabismus. Later he had slight learning difficulties, with normal social behavior and now lives an independent life as an adult. Apart from hypogenitalism, he has multiple hyperpigmented nevi all over his body, short feet with pes cavus and claw toes. At age of 30 years, cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic analysis revealed a karyotype of 50,XY,+min(6)(:p11.1-> q11.1:),+min(8)(: p11.1->q11.1:),+min(11)(:p11.11->q11:),+min(12)(:p11.2~12->q10:), leading overall to a small partial trisomy in 12p11.1~12.1. Conclusions: Including this case, four single case reports are available in the literature with a karyotype 50,XN,4+4mar. For prenatally detected multiple small supernumerary marker chromosomes in particular we learn from this case that such a cytogenetic condition may be correlated with a positive clinical outcome