Inder Gadi

UPD detection using homozygosity profiling with a SNP genotyping microarray.

Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) based chromosome microarrays provide both a high‐density whole genome analysis of copy number and genotype. In the past 21 months we have analyzed over 13,000 samples primarily referred for developmental delay using the Affymetrix SNP/CN 6.0 version array platform. In addition to copy number, we have focused on the relative distribution of allele homozygosity (HZ) throughout the genome to confirm a strong association of uniparental disomy (UPD) with regions of isoallelism found in most confirmed cases of UPD. We sought to determine whether a long contiguous stretch of HZ (LCSH) greater than a threshold value found only in a single chromosome would correlate with UPD of that chromosome. Nine confirmed UPD cases were retrospectively analyzed with the array in the study, each showing the anticipated LCSH with the smallest 13.5 Mb in length. This length is well above the average longest run of HZ in a set of control patients and was then set as the prospective threshold for reporting possible UPD correlation. Ninety‐two cases qualified at that threshold, 46 of those had molecular UPD testing and 29 were positive. Including retrospective cases, 16 showed complete HZ across the chromosome, consistent with total isoUPD. The average size LCSH in the 19 cases that were not completely HZ was 46.3 Mb with a range of 13.5–127.8 Mb. Three patients showed only segmental UPD. Both the size and location of the LCSH are relevant to correlation with UPD. Further studies will continue to delineate an optimal threshold for LCSH/UPD correlation.

Phenotypic heterogeneity in a family with a small atypical microduplication of chromosome 22q11.2 involving TBX1

The chromosome 22q11.2 region is commonly involved in non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) events. Microduplications of 22q11.2, usually involving a 3 Mb or 1.5 Mb region constitute the 22q11 microduplication syndrome. Both microdeletions and microduplications of 22q11.21 are reported to share several phenotypic characteristics, including dysmorphic facial features, velopharyngeal insufficiency, congenital heart disease, urogenital abnormalities, and immunologic defects. We report a child who presented at 8 months of age for evaluation of microcephaly and mild motor delay. Head circumference at birth, at 8 months, and at 19 months of age was below the 3rd centile. Other findings included left-sided cryptorchidism and developmental dysplasia of the left hip. In addition, echocardiography revealed a restrictive patent ductus arteriosus. Chromosomal microarray analysis using Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 revealed a novel 437 kb interstitial duplication at 22q11.21, involving TBX1, whose breakpoints did not coincide with known low copy repeat (LCR) regions. The same duplication was confirmed by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) in the patients mother and an older sister. The mother has a history of anxiety disorder and depression. The sister had a history of delayed motor milestones. None of the three duplication carriers has any documented renal anomalies or other significant medical problems. This report demonstrates the clinical heterogeneity associated with microduplications of 22q11.2 and illustrates the difficulties related to providing prognostic information and accurate genetic counseling to families when this finding is detected. The described microduplication is the smallest in this genomic region reported to date and further implicates abnormal gene dosage of TBX1 in disorders resulting from 22q11.2 rearrangements.

Ovotesticular Disorder of Sexual Development (True Hermaphroditism)

OBJECTIVES To determine the mechanism for the 46,XX/46,XY karyotype observed in a patient with an ovotesticular disorder of sexual development (ie, true hermaphroditism). METHODS Cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and molecular DNA analyses were performed on the blood, skin, and left and right gonadal tissue from 2 surgical procedures. The results of these studies were used to determine whether the ovotesticular disorder of sexual development resulted from mosaicism or tetragametic chimerism. RESULTS Cytogenetic and molecular analyses revealed a mixture of 46,XX and 46,XY cells in most tissues. DNA analysis from the gonadal tissues from surgeries 1 and 2 was performed. Highly polymorphic loci from 12 different chromosomes were examined for the presence of > or = 1 paternal or maternal alleles. Three loci were highly informative: D14S544 (14q32.2), DS14S583 (14q21.3), and SE33 (6q14). Each demonstrated the presence of 2 paternal and 2 maternal alleles, indicating that the ovotesticular disorder of sexual development resulted from tetragametic chimerism. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of the cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and DNA analyses of the polymorphic markers from several different loci, it was confirmed that the patient had tetragametic chimerism. This case has assisted in increasing our knowledge of the possible mechanisms causing this rare and complex disorder.

Three cases of isolated terminal deletion of chromosome 8p without heart defects presenting with a mild phenotype.

Individuals with isolated terminal deletions of 8p have been well described in the literature, however, molecular characterization, particularly by microarray, of the deletion in most instances is lacking. The phenotype of such individuals falls primarily into two categories: those with cardiac defects, and those without. The architecture of 8p has been demonstrated to contain two inversely oriented segmental duplications at 8p23.1, flanking the gene, GATA4. Haploinsufficiency of this gene has been implicated in cardiac defects seen in numerous individuals with terminal 8p deletion. Current microarray technologies allow for the precise elucidation of the size and gene content of the deleted region. We present three individuals with isolated terminal deletion of 8p distal to the segmental duplication telomeric to GATA4. These individuals present with a relatively mild and nonspecific phenotype including mildly dysmorphic features, developmental delay, speech delay, and early behavior issues.

Partial trisomy 19p13.3 and partial monosomy 1p36.3: Clinical report and a literature review

We report on a 15‐month‐old girl with a deletion of the distal short arm of chromosome 1p36.3, partial trisomy of the short arm of chromosome 19p13.3, growth and developmental delay, and multiple anomalies including microcephaly, bifrontal prominence, obtuse frontonasal angle, short columella, hypertelorism, sacral dimples, and a bicuspid pulmonary valve. Based on our FISH mapping studies, we estimate the size of the trisomic region of 19p.13.3 to be ∼3.17 Mb, and the region of monosomy for 1p36.3 as 1.3 Mb. This is the first report of a patient with partial trisomy 19p13.3 and partial monosomy p36.3.

Mosaic paternal genome-wide uniparental isodisomy with down syndrome

We report on a 6‐month‐old girl with two apparent cell lines; one with trisomy 21, and the other with paternal genome‐wide uniparental isodisomy (GWUPiD), identified using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) based microarray and microsatellite analysis of polymorphic loci. The patient has Beckwith‐Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) due to paternal uniparental disomy (UPD) at chromosome location 11p15 (UPD 11p15), which was confirmed through methylation analysis. Hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia is present, which is associated with paternal UPD 11p15.5; and she likely has medullary nephrocalcinosis, which is associated with paternal UPD 20, although this was not biochemically confirmed. Angelman syndrome (AS) analysis was negative but this testing is not completely informative; she has no specific features of AS. Clinical features of this patient include: dysmorphic features consistent with trisomy 21, tetralogy of Fallot, hemihypertrophy, swirled skin hyperpigmentation, hepatoblastoma, and Wilms tumor. Her karyotype is 47,XX,+21[19]/46,XX[4], and microarray results suggest that the cell line with trisomy 21 is biparentally inherited and represents 40‐50% of the genomic material in the tested specimen. The difference in the level of cytogenetically detected mosaicism versus the level of mosaicism observed via microarray analysis is likely caused by differences in the test methodologies. While a handful of cases of mosaic paternal GWUPiD have been reported, this patient is the only reported case that also involves trisomy 21. Other GWUPiD patients have presented with features associated with multiple imprinted regions, as does our patient.

A prenatal diagnosis of mosaic trisomy 5 reveals a postnatal complete uniparental disomy of chromosome 5 with multiple congenital anomalies

Mosaic trisomy 5 is a very rare condition in liveborns, with few cases reported in the last four decades. There are some reports of prenatally diagnosed mosaic trisomy 5 resulting in phenotypically normal offspring, suggesting a low level of mosaicism, but there are also reports associated with multiple congenital anomalies, cardiovascular malformations, and intrauterine growth restriction. We report an infant male diagnosed with mosaic trisomy 5 (5/15 cells) via amniocentesis. The patient was subsequently found to have uniparental disomy 5 (UPD5) by postnatal chromosome microarray, but high‐resolution chromosome analysis on peripheral blood did not identify trisomy 5. Dysmorphic features included a tall forehead with low anterior hairline, hypertelorism, low‐set ears, and a prominent nose and midface. Other anomalies included bilateral bifid thumbs, hypospadias, a perineal fistula, unilateral multicystic kidney, and decreased subcutaneous fat with loose skin. He had complex congenital heart disease consisting of ventricular and atrial septal defects and polyvalvular defects. The patient died at age one after a prolonged admission. We add this case to the literature with the added benefit of data from a postnatal microarray, which was not available in other cases, to broaden the phenotype of mosaic trisomy 5 and UPD5.With the current available technology, we stress the importance of postnatal genetic testing to confirm prenatal cytogenetic findings in order to further define such phenotypes. This will provide the most accurate information and counseling to affected families.