Literature DB >> 15508017

Supernumerary marker chromosomes in man: parental origin, mosaicism and maternal age revisited.

John A Crolla1, Sheila A Youings, Sarah Ennis, Patricia A Jacobs.   

Abstract

The details of all cytogenetic abnormalities diagnosed in the Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory (WRGL) since 1967 to the present day have been recorded in the Salisbury Treasury of Interesting Chromosomes (STOIC). From this resource, we identified 137 patients with constitutional autosomal supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMC) ascertained in four principal groups: (i) 37% with abnormal phenotypes; (ii) 7% couples with reproductive difficulties; (iii) 47% antenatal diagnoses and (iv) 9% miscellaneous. Overall, 81 (59%) SMCs were mosaics and 56 (41%) nonmosaics. Of the 109 cases with known parental origins, 70% were de novo, 19% maternally and 11% paternally inherited. The chromosomal origins of 112/137 (82%) of the SMCs have been determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In all, 36/112 (32%) were derived from nonacrocentric autosomes, and 76/112 (68%) from the acrocentric autosomes 13/21, 14, 15 and 22. Of these acrocentric SMCs, 39 (51%) were derived from chromosome 15, so that SMC(15) constituted 39/112 (35%) of all SMCs with known chromosomal origins. The frequencies with which mosaicism was observed varied considerably according to the chromosomal origin of the SMCs and accounted for 8/39 (20%) SMC(15), 13/37 (35%) SMCs from other acrocentrics and 25/36 (69%) of nonacrocentric SMCs. The data were analysed for parental age effects, and only de novo SMC(15)s were found to be associated with a significantly increased maternal age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15508017     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  25 in total

1.  Mechanisms and consequences of small supernumerary marker chromosomes: from Barbara McClintock to modern genetic-counseling issues.

Authors:  Erin L Baldwin; Lorraine F May; April N Justice; Christa L Martin; David H Ledbetter
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 2.  Phenotypic characterization of derivative 22 syndrome: case series and review.

Authors:  Deepti Saxena; Priyanka Srivastava; Moni Tuteja; Kausik Mandal; Shubha R Phadke
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.166

3.  Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for rapid distinction between unique sequence positive and negative marker chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Diane Van Opstal; Marjan Boter; Petra Noomen; Malgorzata Srebniak; Guus Hamers; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.009

4.  Analysis of molecular cytogenetic features and PGT-SR for two infertile patients with small supernumerary marker chromosomes.

Authors:  Dehua Cheng; Shimin Yuan; Duo Yi; Keli Luo; Fang Xu; Fei Gong; Changfu Lu; Guangxiu Lu; Ge Lin; Yue-Qiu Tan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Rare chromosome abnormalities, prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates from population-based congenital anomaly registers in Europe.

Authors:  Diana Wellesley; Helen Dolk; Patricia A Boyd; Ruth Greenlees; Martin Haeusler; Vera Nelen; Ester Garne; Babak Khoshnood; Berenice Doray; Anke Rissmann; Carmel Mullaney; Elisa Calzolari; Marian Bakker; Joaquin Salvador; Marie-Claude Addor; Elizabeth Draper; Judith Rankin; David Tucker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC) derived from chromosome 22 in an infertile man with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.

Authors:  Ruth Mikelsaar; Jelena Lissitsina; Oliver Bartsch
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Molecular cytogenetic characterization of eight small supernumerary marker chromosomes originating from chromosomes 2, 4, 8, 18, and 21 in three patients.

Authors:  Joanna Pietrzak; Kristin Mrasek; Ewa Obersztyn; Pawel Stankiewicz; Nadezda Kosyakova; Anja Weise; Sau Wai Cheung; Wei Wen Cai; Ferdinand von Eggeling; Tadeusz Mazurczak; Ewa Bocian; Thomas Liehr
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Multiple Small Supernumerary Marker Chromosomes Resulting from Maternal Meiosis I or II Errors.

Authors:  Ron Hochstenbach; Beata Nowakowska; Marianne Volleth; Amber Ummels; Anna Kutkowska-Kaźmierczak; Ewa Obersztyn; Kamila Ziemkiewicz; Claudia Gerloff; Denny Schanze; Martin Zenker; Petra Muschke; Ina Schanze; Martin Poot; Thomas Liehr
Journal:  Mol Syndromol       Date:  2015-10-31

9.  Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases.

Authors:  Ignatia B Van den Veyver; Ankita Patel; Chad A Shaw; Amber N Pursley; Sung-Hae L Kang; Marcia J Simovich; Patricia A Ward; Sandra Darilek; Anthony Johnson; Sarah E Neill; Weimin Bi; Lisa D White; Christine M Eng; James R Lupski; Sau Wai Cheung; Arthur L Beaudet
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.050

10.  Marker chromosome genomic structure and temporal origin implicate a chromoanasynthesis event in a family with pleiotropic psychiatric phenotypes.

Authors:  Christopher M Grochowski; Shen Gu; Bo Yuan; Julia Tcw; Kristen J Brennand; Jonathan Sebat; Dheeraj Malhotra; Shane McCarthy; Uwe Rudolph; Anna Lindstrand; Zechen Chong; Deborah L Levy; James R Lupski; Claudia M B Carvalho
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 4.878

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.