Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
Clinical and genomic characterization of 8p cytogenomic disorders.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okur Volkan, Hamm Laura, Kavus Haluk, Mebane Caroline, Robinson Scott, Levy Brynn, Chung Wendy K
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To provide a detailed clinical and cytogenomic summary of individuals with chromosome 8p rearrangements of invdupdel(8p), del(8p), and dup(8p).
METHODS: We enrolled 97 individuals with invdupdel(8p), del(8p), and dup(8p). Clinical and molecular data were collected to delineate and compare the clinical findings and rearrangement breakpoints. We included additional 5 individuals with dup(8p) from the literature for a total of 102 individuals.
RESULTS: Eighty-one individuals had recurrent rearrangements of invdupdel(8p) (n = 49), del(8p)_distal (n = 4), del(8p)_proximal (n = 9), del(8p)_proximal&distal (n = 12), and dup(8p)_proximal (n = 7). Twenty-one individuals had nonrecurrent rearrangements. While all individuals had neurodevelopmental features, the frequency and severity of clinical findings were higher in individuals with invdupdel(8p), and with larger duplications. All individuals with GATA4 deletion had structural congenital heart defects; however, the presence of structural heart defects in some individuals with normal GATA4 copy number suggests there are other potentially contributing gene(s) on 8p.
CONCLUSION: Our study may inform families and health-care providers about the associated clinical findings and severity in individuals with chromosome 8p rearrangements, and guide researchers in investigating the underlying molecular and biological mechanisms by providing detailed clinical and cytogenomic information about individuals with distinct 8p rearrangements.
METHODS: We enrolled 97 individuals with invdupdel(8p), del(8p), and dup(8p). Clinical and molecular data were collected to delineate and compare the clinical findings and rearrangement breakpoints. We included additional 5 individuals with dup(8p) from the literature for a total of 102 individuals.
RESULTS: Eighty-one individuals had recurrent rearrangements of invdupdel(8p) (n = 49), del(8p)_distal (n = 4), del(8p)_proximal (n = 9), del(8p)_proximal&distal (n = 12), and dup(8p)_proximal (n = 7). Twenty-one individuals had nonrecurrent rearrangements. While all individuals had neurodevelopmental features, the frequency and severity of clinical findings were higher in individuals with invdupdel(8p), and with larger duplications. All individuals with GATA4 deletion had structural congenital heart defects; however, the presence of structural heart defects in some individuals with normal GATA4 copy number suggests there are other potentially contributing gene(s) on 8p.
CONCLUSION: Our study may inform families and health-care providers about the associated clinical findings and severity in individuals with chromosome 8p rearrangements, and guide researchers in investigating the underlying molecular and biological mechanisms by providing detailed clinical and cytogenomic information about individuals with distinct 8p rearrangements.