Mechanisms of ring chromosome formation, ring instability and clinical consequences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The breakpoints and mechanisms of ring chromosome formation were studied and mapped in 14 patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Several techniques were performed such as genome-wide array, MLPA (Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification) and FISH (Fluorescent <it>in situ </it>Hybridization).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The ring chromosomes of patients I to XIV were determined to be, respectively: r(3)(p26.1q29), r(4)(p16.3q35.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.13), r(13)(p13q31.1), r(13)(p13q34), r(14)(p13q32.33), r(15)(p13q26.2), r(18)(p11.32q22.2), r(18)(p11.32q21.33), r(18)(p11.21q23), r(22)(p13q13.33), r(22)(p13q13.2), and r(22)(p13q13.2). These rings were found to have been formed by different mechanisms, such as: breaks in both chromosome arms followed by end-to-end reunion (patients IV, VIII, IX, XI, XIII and XIV); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the subtelomeric region of the other (patients I and II); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the opposite telomeric region (patients III and X); fusion of two subtelomeric regions (patient VII); and telomere-telomere fusion (patient XII). Thus, the r(14) and one r(22) can be considered complete rings, since there was no loss of relevant genetic material. Two patients (V and VI) with r(13) showed duplication along with terminal deletion of 13q, one of them proved to be inverted, a mechanism known as inv-dup-del. Ring instability was detected by ring loss and secondary aberrations in all but three patients, who presented stable ring chromosomes (II, XIII and XIV).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We concluded that the clinical phenotype of patients with ring chromosomes may be related with different factors, including gene haploinsufficiency, gene duplications and ring instability. Epigenetic factors due to the circular architecture of ring chromosomes must also be considered, since even complete ring chromosomes can result in phenotypic alterations, as observed in our patients with complete r(14) and r(22).</p

Kidney transplant in diabetic patients: modalities, indications and results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetes is a disease of increasing worldwide prevalence and is the main cause of chronic renal failure. Type 1 diabetic patients with chronic renal failure have the following therapy options: kidney transplant from a living donor, pancreas after kidney transplant, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant, or awaiting a deceased donor kidney transplant. For type 2 diabetic patients, only kidney transplant from deceased or living donors are recommended. Patient survival after kidney transplant has been improving for all age ranges in comparison to the dialysis therapy. The main causes of mortality after transplant are cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, infections and neoplasias. Five-year patient survival for type 2 diabetic patients is lower than the non-diabetics' because they are older and have higher body mass index on the occasion of the transplant and both pre- and posttransplant cardiovascular diseases prevalences. The increased postransplant cardiovascular mortality in these patients is attributed to the presence of well-known risk factors, such as insulin resistance, higher triglycerides values, lower HDL-cholesterol values, abnormalities in fibrinolysis and coagulation and endothelial dysfunction. In type 1 diabetic patients, simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant is associated with lower prevalence of vascular diseases, including acute myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation in comparison to isolated kidney transplant and dialysis therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Type 1 and 2 diabetic patients present higher survival rates after transplant in comparison to the dialysis therapy, although the prevalence of cardiovascular events and infectious complications remain higher than in the general population.</p