Xiangnan Chen1, Huanzheng Li2, Chong Chen2, Lili Zhou1,2, Xueqin Xu2, Yanbao Xiang2, Shaohua Tang3,4. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. 2. The Center of Wenzhou Prenatal Diagnostics, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects, Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. tsh006@sohu.com. 4. The Center of Wenzhou Prenatal Diagnostics, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects, Wenzhou Central Hospital, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. tsh006@sohu.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intellectual disability (ID) is often sporadic, and its complex etiology makes clinical diagnosis extremely difficult. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to detect copy number variations (CNVs) in patients with ID and to analyze the correlation between pathogenic CNVs and clinical phenotype. METHODS: After cases of ID caused by metabolic dysfunction or environmental factors were excluded, 64 patients with moderate to severe ID were enrolled. Karyotype and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses were performed for all patients. The relationship between CNVs and phenotype was identified with genotype-phenotype comparisons and by searching CNV databases. RESULTS: Karyotype analysis showed four patients with chromosomal aneuploidy and seven with chromosomal structural abnormality. After excluding the four cases with chromosomal aneuploidy, the remaining 60 cases were analyzed using SNP array. The results revealed 87 CNVs in 45 cases, including 16 pathogenic CNVs in 12 individuals, with a diagnostic yield of 20.0% (12/60). We found large deletions at 16q22.2q23.1 and 3q24q25.32 in two patients, respectively, in whom specific syndromes had not been defined. Our array analysis showed one case carried a 210 kb deletion at 1p21.2p21.3, which included only one coding gene LPPR4, which might be a candidate gene for ID phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the genome-wide array method can improve the detection rate of CNVs, reveal chromosomal abnormalities that have not been well-characterized by cytology, and provide a new way to locate genes for patients with the ID phenotype. Interpretation of CNVs remains a major challenge. Sharing of CNVs and phenotype information from different laboratories in public databases is important.
INTRODUCTION: Intellectual disability (ID) is often sporadic, and its complex etiology makes clinical diagnosis extremely difficult. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to detect copy number variations (CNVs) in patients with ID and to analyze the correlation between pathogenic CNVs and clinical phenotype. METHODS: After cases of ID caused by metabolic dysfunction or environmental factors were excluded, 64 patients with moderate to severe ID were enrolled. Karyotype and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analyses were performed for all patients. The relationship between CNVs and phenotype was identified with genotype-phenotype comparisons and by searching CNV databases. RESULTS: Karyotype analysis showed four patients with chromosomal aneuploidy and seven with chromosomal structural abnormality. After excluding the four cases with chromosomal aneuploidy, the remaining 60 cases were analyzed using SNP array. The results revealed 87 CNVs in 45 cases, including 16 pathogenic CNVs in 12 individuals, with a diagnostic yield of 20.0% (12/60). We found large deletions at 16q22.2q23.1 and 3q24q25.32 in two patients, respectively, in whom specific syndromes had not been defined. Our array analysis showed one case carried a 210 kb deletion at 1p21.2p21.3, which included only one coding gene LPPR4, which might be a candidate gene for ID phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the genome-wide array method can improve the detection rate of CNVs, reveal chromosomal abnormalities that have not been well-characterized by cytology, and provide a new way to locate genes for patients with the ID phenotype. Interpretation of CNVs remains a major challenge. Sharing of CNVs and phenotype information from different laboratories in public databases is important.
Authors: T Caspersson; S Farber; G E Foley; J Kudynowski; E J Modest; E Simonsson; U Wagh; L Zech Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 1968-01 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Bert B A de Vries; Rolph Pfundt; Martijn Leisink; David A Koolen; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Irene M Janssen; Simon van Reijmersdal; Willy M Nillesen; Erik H L P G Huys; Nicole de Leeuw; Dominique Smeets; Erik A Sistermans; Ton Feuth; Conny M A van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Ad Geurts van Kessel; Eric F P M Schoenmakers; Han G Brunner; Joris A Veltman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: David T Miller; Margaret P Adam; Swaroop Aradhya; Leslie G Biesecker; Arthur R Brothman; Nigel P Carter; Deanna M Church; John A Crolla; Evan E Eichler; Charles J Epstein; W Andrew Faucett; Lars Feuk; Jan M Friedman; Ada Hamosh; Laird Jackson; Erin B Kaminsky; Klaas Kok; Ian D Krantz; Robert M Kuhn; Charles Lee; James M Ostell; Carla Rosenberg; Stephen W Scherer; Nancy B Spinner; Dimitri J Stavropoulos; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Joris R Vermeesch; Darrel J Waggoner; Michael S Watson; Christa Lese Martin; David H Ledbetter Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Hutton M Kearney; Erik C Thorland; Kerry K Brown; Fabiola Quintero-Rivera; Sarah T South Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Yao-Shan Fan; Parul Jayakar; Hongbo Zhu; Deborah Barbouth; Stephanie Sacharow; Ana Morales; Virginia Carver; Paul Benke; Peter Mundy; Louis J Elsas Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.878
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: M De Gregori; R Ciccone; P Magini; T Pramparo; S Gimelli; J Messa; F Novara; A Vetro; E Rossi; P Maraschio; M C Bonaglia; C Anichini; G B Ferrero; M Silengo; E Fazzi; A Zatterale; R Fischetto; C Previderé; S Belli; A Turci; G Calabrese; F Bernardi; E Meneghelli; M Riegel; M Rocchi; S Guerneri; F Lalatta; L Zelante; C Romano; M Fichera; T Mattina; G Arrigo; M Zollino; S Giglio; F Lonardo; A Bonfante; A Ferlini; F Cifuentes; H Van Esch; L Backx; A Schinzel; J R Vermeesch; O Zuffardi Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Bradley P Coe; Kali Witherspoon; Jill A Rosenfeld; Bregje W M van Bon; Anneke T Vulto-van Silfhout; Paolo Bosco; Kathryn L Friend; Carl Baker; Serafino Buono; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Janneke H Schuurs-Hoeijmakers; Alex Hoischen; Rolph Pfundt; Nik Krumm; Gemma L Carvill; Deana Li; David Amaral; Natasha Brown; Paul J Lockhart; Ingrid E Scheffer; Antonino Alberti; Marie Shaw; Rosa Pettinato; Raymond Tervo; Nicole de Leeuw; Margot R F Reijnders; Beth S Torchia; Hilde Peeters; Brian J O'Roak; Marco Fichera; Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Jay Shendure; Heather C Mefford; Eric Haan; Jozef Gécz; Bert B A de Vries; Corrado Romano; Evan E Eichler Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-09-14 Impact factor: 38.330