Number and mode of inheritance of QTL influencing backfat thickness on SSC2p in Sino-European pig pedigrees

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the pig, multiple QTL associated with growth and fatness traits have been mapped to chromosome 2 (SSC2) and among these, at least one shows paternal expression due to the IGF2-intron3-G3072A substitution. Previously published results on the position and imprinting status of this QTL disagree between analyses from French and Dutch F2 crossbred pig populations obtained with the same breeds (Meishan crossed with Large White or Landrace).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To study the role of paternal and maternal alleles at the IGF2 locus and to test the hypothesis of a second QTL affecting backfat thickness on the short arm of SSC2 (SSC2p), a QTL mapping analysis was carried out on a combined pedigree including both the French and Dutch F2 populations, on the progeny of F1 males that were heterozygous (A/G) and homozygous (G/G) at the IGF2 locus. Simulations were performed to clarify the relations between the two QTL and to understand to what extent they can explain the discrepancies previously reported.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The QTL analyses showed the segregation of at least two QTL on chromosome 2 in both pedigrees, i.e. the IGF2 locus and a second QTL segregating at least in the G/G F1 males and located between positions 30 and 51 cM. Statistical analyses highlighted that the maternally inherited allele at the IGF2 locus had a significant effect but simulation studies showed that this is probably a spurious effect due to the segregation of the second QTL.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results show that two QTL on SSC2p affect backfat thickness. Differences in the pedigree structures and in the number of heterozygous females at the IGF2 locus result in different imprinting statuses in the two pedigrees studied. The spurious effect observed when a maternally allele is present at the IGF2 locus, is in fact due to the presence of a second closely located QTL. This work confirms that pig chromosome 2 is a major region associated with fattening traits.</p

A deletion and a duplication in distal 22q11.2 deletion syndrome region. Clinical implications and review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Individuals affected with DiGeorge and Velocardiofacial syndromes present with both phenotypic diversity and variable expressivity. The most frequent clinical features include conotruncal congenital heart defects, velopharyngeal insufficiency, hypocalcemia and a characteristic craniofacial dysmorphism. The etiology in most patients is a 3 Mb recurrent deletion in region 22q11.2. However, cases of infrequent deletions and duplications with different sizes and locations have also been reported, generally with a milder, slightly different phenotype for duplications but with no clear genotype-phenotype correlation to date.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We present a 7 month-old male patient with surgically corrected ASD and multiple VSDs, and dysmorphic facial features not clearly suggestive of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, and a newborn male infant with cleft lip and palate and upslanting palpebral fissures. Karyotype, FISH, MLPA, microsatellite markers segregation studies and SNP genotyping by array-CGH were performed in both patients and parents.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Karyotype and FISH with probe N25 were normal for both patients. MLPA analysis detected a partial <it>de novo </it>1.1 Mb deletion in one patient and a novel partial familial 0.4 Mb duplication in the other. Both of these alterations were located at a distal position within the commonly deleted region in 22q11.2. These rearrangements were confirmed and accurately characterized by microsatellite marker segregation studies and SNP array genotyping.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The phenotypic diversity found for deletions and duplications supports a lack of genotype-phenotype correlation in the vicinity of the LCRC-LCRD interval of the 22q11.2 chromosomal region, whereas the high presence of duplications in normal individuals supports their role as polymorphisms. We suggest that any hypothetical correlation between the clinical phenotype and the size and location of these alterations may be masked by other genetic and/or epigenetic modifying factors.</p