BMC medical genetics · 2014
Intergenerational and intrafamilial phenotypic variability in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome subjects.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Cirillo Emilia, Giardino Giuliana, Gallo Vera, Puliafito Pamela, Azzari Chiara, Bacchetta Rosa, Cardinale Fabio, Cicalese Maria Pia, Consolini Rita, Martino Silvana, Martire Baldassarre, Molinatto Cristina, Plebani Alessandro, Scarano Gioacchino, Soresina Annarosa, Cancrini Caterina, Rossi Paolo, Digilio Maria Cristina, Pignata Claudio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is a common microdeletion syndrome, which occurs in approximately 1:4000 births. Familial autosomal dominant recurrence of the syndrome is detected in about 8-28% of the cases. Aim of this study is to evaluate the intergenerational and intrafamilial phenotypic variability in a cohort of familial cases carrying a 22q11.2 deletion.
METHODS: Thirty-two 22q11.2DS subjects among 26 families were enrolled.
RESULTS: Second generation subjects showed a significantly higher number of features than their transmitting parents (212 vs 129, P = 0.0015). Congenital heart defect, calcium-phosphorus metabolism abnormalities, developmental and speech delay were more represented in the second generation (P < 0.05). Ocular disorders were more frequent in the parent group. No significant difference was observed for the other clinical variables. Intrafamilial phenotypic heterogeneity was identified in the pedigrees. In 23/32 families, a higher number of features were found in individuals from the second generation and a more severe phenotype was observed in almost all of them, indicating the worsening of the phenotype over generations. Both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms may be involved in the phenotypic variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Second generation subjects showed a more complex phenotype in comparison to those from the first generation. Both ascertainment bias related to patient selection or to the low rate of reproductive fitness of adults with a more severe phenotype, and several not well defined molecular mechanism, could explain intergenerational and intrafamilial phenotypic variability in this syndrome.
METHODS: Thirty-two 22q11.2DS subjects among 26 families were enrolled.
RESULTS: Second generation subjects showed a significantly higher number of features than their transmitting parents (212 vs 129, P = 0.0015). Congenital heart defect, calcium-phosphorus metabolism abnormalities, developmental and speech delay were more represented in the second generation (P < 0.05). Ocular disorders were more frequent in the parent group. No significant difference was observed for the other clinical variables. Intrafamilial phenotypic heterogeneity was identified in the pedigrees. In 23/32 families, a higher number of features were found in individuals from the second generation and a more severe phenotype was observed in almost all of them, indicating the worsening of the phenotype over generations. Both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms may be involved in the phenotypic variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Second generation subjects showed a more complex phenotype in comparison to those from the first generation. Both ascertainment bias related to patient selection or to the low rate of reproductive fitness of adults with a more severe phenotype, and several not well defined molecular mechanism, could explain intergenerational and intrafamilial phenotypic variability in this syndrome.