OBJECTIVE: To describe the systematic analysis of constitutional de novo apparently balanced translocations in patients presenting with abnormal phenotypes, characterise the structural chromosome rearrangements, map the translocation breakpoints, and report detectable genomic imbalances. METHODS: DNA microarrays were used with a resolution of 1 Mb for the detailed genome-wide analysis of the patients. Array CGH was used to screen for genomic imbalance and array painting to map chromosome breakpoints rapidly. These two methods facilitate rapid analysis of translocation breakpoints and screening for cryptic chromosome imbalance. Breakpoints of rearrangements were further refined (to the level of spanning clones) using fluorescence in situ hybridisation where appropriate. RESULTS: Unexpected additional complexity or genome imbalance was found in six of 10 patients studied. The patients could be grouped according to the general nature of the karyotype rearrangement as follows: (A) three cases with complex multiple rearrangements including deletions, inversions, and insertions at or near one or both breakpoints; (B) three cases in which, while the translocations appeared to be balanced, microarray analysis identified previously unrecognised imbalance on chromosomes unrelated to the translocation; (C) four cases in which the translocation breakpoints appeared simple and balanced at the resolution used. CONCLUSIONS: This high level of unexpected rearrangement complexity, if generally confirmed in the study of further patients, will have an impact on current diagnostic investigations of this type and provides an argument for the more widespread adoption of microarray analysis or other high resolution genome-wide screens for chromosome imbalance and rearrangement.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the systematic analysis of constitutional de novo apparently balanced translocations in patients presenting with abnormal phenotypes, characterise the structural chromosome rearrangements, map the translocation breakpoints, and report detectable genomic imbalances. METHODS: DNA microarrays were used with a resolution of 1 Mb for the detailed genome-wide analysis of the patients. Array CGH was used to screen for genomic imbalance and array painting to map chromosome breakpoints rapidly. These two methods facilitate rapid analysis of translocation breakpoints and screening for cryptic chromosome imbalance. Breakpoints of rearrangements were further refined (to the level of spanning clones) using fluorescence in situ hybridisation where appropriate. RESULTS: Unexpected additional complexity or genome imbalance was found in six of 10 patients studied. The patients could be grouped according to the general nature of the karyotype rearrangement as follows: (A) three cases with complex multiple rearrangements including deletions, inversions, and insertions at or near one or both breakpoints; (B) three cases in which, while the translocations appeared to be balanced, microarray analysis identified previously unrecognised imbalance on chromosomes unrelated to the translocation; (C) four cases in which the translocation breakpoints appeared simple and balanced at the resolution used. CONCLUSIONS: This high level of unexpected rearrangement complexity, if generally confirmed in the study of further patients, will have an impact on current diagnostic investigations of this type and provides an argument for the more widespread adoption of microarray analysis or other high resolution genome-wide screens for chromosome imbalance and rearrangement.
Authors: M Kirchhoff; H Rose; J Maahr; T Gerdes; M Bugge; N Tommerup; Z Tümer; J Lespinasse; P K Jensen; J Wirth; C Lundsteen Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: H Fiegler; S M Gribble; D C Burford; P Carr; E Prigmore; K M Porter; S Clegg; J A Crolla; N R Dennis; P Jacobs; N P Carter Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Adrian S Ishkanian; Chad A Malloff; Spencer K Watson; Ronald J DeLeeuw; Bryan Chi; Bradley P Coe; Antoine Snijders; Donna G Albertson; Daniel Pinkel; Marco A Marra; Victor Ling; Calum MacAulay; Wan L Lam Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: J K Millar; J C Wilson-Annan; S Anderson; S Christie; M S Taylor; C A Semple; R S Devon; D M St Clair; W J Muir; D H Blackwood; D J Porteous Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2000-05-22 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: I Borg; M Squire; C Menzel; K Stout; D Morgan; L Willatt; P C M O'Brien; M A Ferguson-Smith; H H Ropers; N Tommerup; V M Kalscheuer; D R Sargan Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Caroline Astbury; Laurie A Christ; David J Aughton; Suzanne B Cassidy; Arun Kumar; Evan E Eichler; Stuart Schwartz Journal: Genet Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: C Shaw-Smith; R Redon; L Rickman; M Rio; L Willatt; H Fiegler; H Firth; D Sanlaville; R Winter; L Colleaux; M Bobrow; N P Carter Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Lisenka E L M Vissers; Bert B A de Vries; Kazutoyo Osoegawa; Irene M Janssen; Ton Feuth; Chik On Choy; Huub Straatman; Walter van der Vliet; Erik H L P G Huys; Anke van Rijk; Dominique Smeets; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Nine V Knoers; Ineke van der Burgt; Pieter J de Jong; Han G Brunner; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Eric F P M Schoenmakers; Joris A Veltman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-11-18 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Adam C Smith; Masako Suzuki; Reid Thompson; Sanaa Choufani; Michael J Higgins; Idy W Chiu; Jeremy A Squire; John M Greally; Rosanna Weksberg Journal: Genomics Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 5.736
Authors: Charlene Sibbons; Joan K Morris; John A Crolla; Patricia A Jacobs; N Simon Thomas Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Zhishuo Ou; Paweł Stankiewicz; Zhilian Xia; Amy M Breman; Brian Dawson; Joanna Wiszniewska; Przemyslaw Szafranski; M Lance Cooper; Mitchell Rao; Lina Shao; Sarah T South; Karlene Coleman; Paul M Fernhoff; Marcel J Deray; Sally Rosengren; Elizabeth R Roeder; Victoria B Enciso; A Craig Chinault; Ankita Patel; Sung-Hae L Kang; Chad A Shaw; James R Lupski; Sau W Cheung Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: S M Gribble; D Kalaitzopoulos; D C Burford; E Prigmore; R R Selzer; B L Ng; N S W Matthews; K M Porter; R Curley; S J Lindsay; J Baptista; T A Richmond; N P Carter Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Christine Fauth; Susan M Gribble; Keith M Porter; Montserrat Codina-Pascual; Bee Ling Ng; Jürgen Kraus; Sabine Uhrig; Jürgen Leifheit; Thomas Haaf; Heike Fiegler; Nigel P Carter; Michael R Speicher Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Rebecca E Foster; Mahera Abdulrahman; Mark R Morris; Elena Prigmore; Susan Gribble; Beeling Ng; Dean Gentle; Steven Ready; Phil M T Weston; Michael S Wiesener; Takeshi Kishida; Masahiro Yao; Val Davison; Jose Luis Barbero; Carol Chu; Nigel P Carter; Farida Latif; Eamonn R Maher Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.006