BACKGROUND: The breakpoints and mechanisms of ring chromosome formation were studied and mapped in 14 patients. METHODS: Several techniques were performed such as genome-wide array, MLPA (Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification) and FISH (Fluorescent in situ Hybridization). RESULTS: The ring chromosomes of patients I to XIV were determined to be, respectively: r(3)(p26.1q29), r(4)(p16.3q35.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.13), r(13)(p13q31.1), r(13)(p13q34), r(14)(p13q32.33), r(15)(p13q26.2), r(18)(p11.32q22.2), r(18)(p11.32q21.33), r(18)(p11.21q23), r(22)(p13q13.33), r(22)(p13q13.2), and r(22)(p13q13.2). These rings were found to have been formed by different mechanisms, such as: breaks in both chromosome arms followed by end-to-end reunion (patients IV, VIII, IX, XI, XIII and XIV); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the subtelomeric region of the other (patients I and II); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the opposite telomeric region (patients III and X); fusion of two subtelomeric regions (patient VII); and telomere-telomere fusion (patient XII). Thus, the r(14) and one r(22) can be considered complete rings, since there was no loss of relevant genetic material. Two patients (V and VI) with r(13) showed duplication along with terminal deletion of 13q, one of them proved to be inverted, a mechanism known as inv-dup-del. Ring instability was detected by ring loss and secondary aberrations in all but three patients, who presented stable ring chromosomes (II, XIII and XIV). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the clinical phenotype of patients with ring chromosomes may be related with different factors, including gene haploinsufficiency, gene duplications and ring instability. Epigenetic factors due to the circular architecture of ring chromosomes must also be considered, since even complete ring chromosomes can result in phenotypic alterations, as observed in our patients with complete r(14) and r(22).
BACKGROUND: The breakpoints and mechanisms of ring chromosome formation were studied and mapped in 14 patients. METHODS: Several techniques were performed such as genome-wide array, MLPA (Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification) and FISH (Fluorescent in situ Hybridization). RESULTS: The ring chromosomes of patients I to XIV were determined to be, respectively: r(3)(p26.1q29), r(4)(p16.3q35.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.2), r(10)(p15.3q26.13), r(13)(p13q31.1), r(13)(p13q34), r(14)(p13q32.33), r(15)(p13q26.2), r(18)(p11.32q22.2), r(18)(p11.32q21.33), r(18)(p11.21q23), r(22)(p13q13.33), r(22)(p13q13.2), and r(22)(p13q13.2). These rings were found to have been formed by different mechanisms, such as: breaks in both chromosome arms followed by end-to-end reunion (patients IV, VIII, IX, XI, XIII and XIV); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the subtelomeric region of the other (patients I and II); a break in one chromosome arm followed by fusion with the opposite telomeric region (patients III and X); fusion of two subtelomeric regions (patient VII); and telomere-telomere fusion (patient XII). Thus, the r(14) and one r(22) can be considered complete rings, since there was no loss of relevant genetic material. Two patients (V and VI) with r(13) showed duplication along with terminal deletion of 13q, one of them proved to be inverted, a mechanism known as inv-dup-del. Ring instability was detected by ring loss and secondary aberrations in all but three patients, who presented stable ring chromosomes (II, XIII and XIV). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the clinical phenotype of patients with ring chromosomes may be related with different factors, including gene haploinsufficiency, gene duplications and ring instability. Epigenetic factors due to the circular architecture of ring chromosomes must also be considered, since even complete ring chromosomes can result in phenotypic alterations, as observed in our patients with complete r(14) and r(22).
Authors: Laura K Conlin; Whitney Kramer; Anne L Hutchinson; Xia Li; Harold Riethman; Hakon Hakonarson; John C Mulley; Ingrid E Scheffer; Samuel F Berkovic; Syed A Hosain; Nancy B Spinner Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: J K Frizzley; M J Stephan; A N Lamb; P P Jonas; R M Hinson; D R Moffitt; D L Shkolny; H E McDermid Journal: J Med Genet Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: T Ogata; K Muroya; I Sasagawa; T Kosho; K Wakui; S Sakazume; K Ito; N Matsuo; H Ohashi; T Nagai Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: R Santos Guilherme; S Bragagnolo; R Pellegrino; D M Christofolini; S S Takeno; G M Carvolheira; L Domenici Kulikowski; M I Melaragno Journal: Cytogenet Genome Res Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Marcella Zollino; Laura Seminara; Daniela Orteschi; Giuseppe Gobbi; Simona Giovannini; Elvio Della Giustina; Daniele Frattini; Angela Scarano; Giovanni Neri Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Martina Höckner; Barbara Utermann; Martin Erdel; Christine Fauth; Gerd Utermann; Dieter Kotzot Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Y Y Fang; H J Eyre; S K Bohlander; A Estop; E McPherson; T Träger; O Riess; D F Callen Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Roberta Santos Guilherme; Elisabeth Klein; Claudia Venner; Ahmed B Hamid; Samarth Bhatt; Maria Isabel Melaragno; Marianne Volleth; Anna Polityko; Anna Kulpanovich; Nadezda Kosyakova; Thomas Liehr Journal: Chromosome Res Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 5.239
Authors: Karen E Hermetz; Scott Newman; Karen N Conneely; Christa L Martin; Blake C Ballif; Lisa G Shaffer; Jannine D Cody; M Katharine Rudd Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Rs Guilherme; E Klein; Ab Hamid; S Bhatt; M Volleth; A Polityko; A Kulpanovich; A Dufke; B Albrecht; S Morlot; L Brecevic; Mb Petersen; E Manolakos; N Kosyakova; T Liehr Journal: Balkan J Med Genet Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 0.519