OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to use array comparative genomic hybridization to detect causal microdeletions in samples of subjects with cleft lip and palate. SUBJECTS: We analyzed DNA samples from a male patient and his parents seen during surgical screening for an Operation Smile medical mission in the Philippines. METHOD: We used Affymetrix® Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 followed by sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction using SYBR Green I dye. RESULTS: We report the second case of 3q29 microdeletion syndrome including cleft lip with or without cleft palate and the first case of this microdeletion syndrome inherited from a phenotypically normal mosaic parent. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the usefulness of a comparative genomic hybridization to detect causal microdeletions and indicate that parental somatic mosaicism should be considered in healthy parents for genetic counseling of the families. We discuss important ethical implications of sharing health impact results from research studies with the participant families.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to use array comparative genomic hybridization to detect causal microdeletions in samples of subjects with cleft lip and palate. SUBJECTS: We analyzed DNA samples from a male patient and his parents seen during surgical screening for an Operation Smile medical mission in the Philippines. METHOD: We used Affymetrix® Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 followed by sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction using SYBR Green I dye. RESULTS: We report the second case of 3q29 microdeletion syndrome including cleft lip with or without cleft palate and the first case of this microdeletion syndrome inherited from a phenotypically normal mosaic parent. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the usefulness of a comparative genomic hybridization to detect causal microdeletions and indicate that parental somatic mosaicism should be considered in healthy parents for genetic counseling of the families. We discuss important ethical implications of sharing health impact results from research studies with the participant families.
Authors: Emily C Lisi; Ada Hamosh; Kimberly F Doheny; Elizabeth Squibb; Barbara Jackson; Rebecca Galczynski; George H Thomas; Denise A S Batista Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: M C Phelan; R C Rogers; R A Saul; G A Stapleton; K Sweet; H McDermid; S R Shaw; J Claytor; J Willis; D P Kelly Journal: Am J Med Genet Date: 2001-06-15
Authors: K M Allen; J G Gleeson; S Bagrodia; M W Partington; J C MacMillan; R A Cerione; J C Mulley; C A Walsh Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Lionel Willatt; James Cox; John Barber; Elisabet Dachs Cabanas; Amanda Collins; Dian Donnai; David R FitzPatrick; Eddy Maher; Howard Martin; Josep Parnau; Lesley Pindar; Jacqueline Ramsay; Charles Shaw-Smith; Erik A Sistermans; Michael Tettenborn; Dorothy Trump; Bert B A de Vries; Kate Walker; F Lucy Raymond Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-05-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Sulagna C Saitta; Stacy E Harris; Donna M McDonald-McGinn; Beverly S Emanuel; Melissa K Tonnesen; Elaine H Zackai; Suzanne C Seitz; Deborah A Driscoll Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2004-01-30 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Rosanna Weksberg; Simon Hughes; Laura Moldovan; Anne S Bassett; Eva W C Chow; Jeremy A Squire Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2005-12-13 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Melissa M Murphy; T Lindsey Burrell; Joseph F Cubells; Michael T Epstein; Roberto Espana; Michael J Gambello; Katrina Goines; Cheryl Klaiman; Sookyong Koh; Rossana Sanchez Russo; Celine A Saulnier; Elaine Walker; Jennifer Gladys Mulle Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 3.630