BACKGROUND: Cryptic subtelomeric rearrangements have been proposed as a significant cause of sporadic intellectual disability (ID) but the role of such aberrations in familial ID has not yet been studied. As positive family history of ID had been proposed as an important and significant predicting factor of subtelomeric rearrangements, it was assumed that the contribution of subtelomeric aberrations in familial ID would be much more than the sporadic ones. Three hundred and twenty two patients from 102 unrelated families with more than two ID patients in the first degree relatives have been investigated. Assessment of subtelomeric rearrangements were carried out using Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) technique. Detected aberrations were then confirmed by Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH) method. RESULTS: Among the families studied, 27.4% had 4-12, 36.3% had 3 and 36.3% had 2 affected individuals in the first degree relatives. One unbalanced translocation and 4 polymorphic changes were detected. The prevalence of clinically significant subtelomeric rearrangements was 0.98%. CONCLUSION: This is the first investigation of subtelomeric aberrations in a large sample set of familial ID patients. Our results show that the contribution of subtelomeric rearrangements to familial ID is not as much as what had been determined for sporadic ones in the literature. Moreover, this study shows that the positive family history by alone, cannot be the most important and determining indicator of subtelomeric aberrations while it would be a good predicting factor when associated with dysmorphism or congenital malformations. These findings propose that other cryptic chromosomal abnormalities or even single gene disorders may be the main cause of familial ID rather than subtelomeric aberrations.
BACKGROUND:Cryptic subtelomeric rearrangements have been proposed as a significant cause of sporadic intellectual disability (ID) but the role of such aberrations in familial ID has not yet been studied. As positive family history of ID had been proposed as an important and significant predicting factor of subtelomeric rearrangements, it was assumed that the contribution of subtelomeric aberrations in familial ID would be much more than the sporadic ones. Three hundred and twenty two patients from 102 unrelated families with more than two ID patients in the first degree relatives have been investigated. Assessment of subtelomeric rearrangements were carried out using Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) technique. Detected aberrations were then confirmed by Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH) method. RESULTS: Among the families studied, 27.4% had 4-12, 36.3% had 3 and 36.3% had 2 affected individuals in the first degree relatives. One unbalanced translocation and 4 polymorphic changes were detected. The prevalence of clinically significant subtelomeric rearrangements was 0.98%. CONCLUSION: This is the first investigation of subtelomeric aberrations in a large sample set of familial IDpatients. Our results show that the contribution of subtelomeric rearrangements to familial ID is not as much as what had been determined for sporadic ones in the literature. Moreover, this study shows that the positive family history by alone, cannot be the most important and determining indicator of subtelomeric aberrations while it would be a good predicting factor when associated with dysmorphism or congenital malformations. These findings propose that other crypticchromosomal abnormalities or even single gene disorders may be the main cause of familial ID rather than subtelomeric aberrations.
Authors: J B Ravnan; J H Tepperberg; P Papenhausen; A N Lamb; J Hedrick; D Eash; D H Ledbetter; C L Martin Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: E M Ruiter; D A Koolen; T Kleefstra; W M Nillesen; R Pfundt; N de Leeuw; B C J Hamel; H G Brunner; E A Sistermans; B B A de Vries Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: D A Koolen; W M Nillesen; M H A Versteeg; G F M Merkx; N V A M Knoers; M Kets; S Vermeer; C M A van Ravenswaaij; C G de Kovel; H G Brunner; D Smeets; B B A de Vries; E A Sistermans Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: M J Rosenberg; C Killoran; L Dziadzio; S Chang; D L Stone; J Meck; D Aughton; L M Bird; J Bodurtha; S B Cassidy; J M Graham; A Grix; A E Guttmacher; L Hudgins; C Kozma; R C Michaelis; R Pauli; K F Peters; K N Rosenbaum; C J Tifft; D Wargowski; M S Williams; L G Biesecker Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: C D M van Karnebeek; C Koevoets; S Sluijter; E K Bijlsma; D F M C Smeets; E J Redeker; R C M Hennekam; J M N Hoovers Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Lina Shao; Chad A Shaw; Xin-Yan Lu; Trilochan Sahoo; Carlos A Bacino; Seema R Lalani; Pawel Stankiewicz; Svetlana A Yatsenko; Yinfeng Li; Sarah Neill; Amber N Pursley; A Craig Chinault; Ankita Patel; Arthur L Beaudet; James R Lupski; Sau W Cheung Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: M Palomares; A Delicado; P Lapunzina; D Arjona; C Amiñoso; J Arcas; A Martinez Bermejo; L Fernández; I López Pajares Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Vijay R Boggula; Anju Shukla; Sumita Danda; Sankar V Hariharan; Sheela Nampoothiri; Rashmi Kumar; Shubha R Phadke Journal: Indian J Med Res Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.375