Cat eye syndrome: Clinical, cytogenetics and familial findings in a large cohort of 43 patients highlighting the importance of congenital heart disease and inherited cases.

Cat Eye Syndrome (CES) is a rare genetic disease caused by the presence of a small supernumerary marker chromosome derived from chromosome 22, which results in a partial tetrasomy of 22p-22q11.21. CES is classically defined by association of iris coloboma, anal atresia, and preauricular tags or pits, with high clinical and genetic heterogeneity. We conducted an international retrospective study of patients carrying genomic gain in the 22q11.21 chromosomal region upstream from LCR22-A identified using FISH, MLPA, and/or array-CGH. We report a cohort of 43 CES cases. We highlight that the clinical triad represents no more than 50% of cases. However, only 16% of CES patients presented with the three signs of the triad and 9% not present any of these three signs. We also highlight the importance of other impairments: cardiac anomalies are one of the major signs of CES (51% of cases), and high frequency of intellectual disability (47%). Ocular motility defects (45%), abdominal malformations (44%), ophthalmologic malformations (35%), and genitourinary tract defects (32%) are other frequent clinical features. We observed that sSMC is the most frequent chromosomal anomaly (91%) and we highlight the high prevalence of mosaic cases (40%) and the unexpectedly high prevalence of parental transmission of sSMC (23%). Most often, the transmitting parent has mild or absent features and carries the mosaic marker at a very low rate (<10%). These data allow us to better delineate the clinical phenotype associated with CES, which must be taken into account in the cytogenetic testing for this syndrome. These findings draw attention to the need for genetic counseling and the risk of recurrence.

Presence of harmless small supernumerary marker chromosomes hampers molecular genetic diagnosis: a case report.

Mental retardation is correlated in approximately 0.4% of cases with the presence of a small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC). However, here we report a case of a carrier of a heterochromatic harmless sSMC with fragile X syndrome (Fra X). In approximately 2% of sSMC cases, similar heterochromatic sSMC were observed in a clinically abnormal carriers. In a subset of such cases, uniparental disomy (UPD) of the corresponding sister chromosomes was shown to be the cause of mental retardation. For the remainder of the cases, including the present one, the sSMC was just a random finding not related to the clinical phenotype. Thus, it is proposed to test patients with heterochromatic sSMC and mental retardation of unclear cause as follows: i) exclude UPD, ii) test for Fra X as it is a major cause of inherited mental retardation, and iii) perform chip-based assays or tests for special genetic diseases according to the phenotype. In any case, the diagnosis of a cytogenetic aberration such as an sSMC should not automatically be considered the resolution of a clinical case.

Thirty-two new cases with small supernumerary marker chromosomes detected in connection with fertility problems: detailed molecular cytogenetic characterization and review of the literature.

Thirty-two patients with fertility problems were identified as carriers of small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC). Molecular cytogenetic techniques were used to characterize their chromosomal origin. Together with the other cases available in the literature 111 sSMC cases have now been detected in connection with fertility problems in otherwise clinically healthy persons and characterized for their genetic content. According to this study, in 60% of the cases the sSMC originated from chromosomes 14 or 15. Euchromatic imbalances were caused by the sSMC presence in 30% of the cases. Notably, in 53% of infertile sSMC carriers, the sSMC was parentally transmitted. As we found indications of an as yet unknown mechanism for the elimination of sSMC from the human gene pool, sSMC could also play a role in elucidating the process of chromosome gain and loss during evolution. Nonetheless, further detailed molecular analysis will be necessary in the future to characterize the mechanisms and genetic basis for this phenomenon.

Complex rearranged small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC), three new cases; evidence for an underestimated entity?

BACKGROUND: Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) are present ~2.6 x 106 human worldwide. sSMC are a heterogeneous group of derivative chromosomes concerning their clinical consequences as well as their chromosomal origin and shape. Besides the sSMC present in Emanuel syndrome, i.e. der(22)t(11;22)(q23;q11), only few so-called complex sSMC are reported. RESULTS: Here we report three new cases of unique complex sSMC. One was a de novo case with a dic(13 or 21;22) and two were maternally derived: a der(18)t(8;18) and a der(13 or 21)t(13 or 21;18). Thus, in summary, now 22 cases of unique complex sSMC are available in the literature. However, this special kind of sSMC might be under-diagnosed among sSMC-carriers. CONCLUSION: More comprehensive characterization of sSMC and approaches like reverse fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or array based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) might identify them to be more frequent than only ~0.9% among all sSMC.

Dilemmas encountered with preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos.

BACKGROUND: An increased embryo aneuploidy rate is associated with advancing maternal age. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) using fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) coupled with in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/embryo biopsy provides a powerful tool to improve the take home baby rates for this poor prognostic group. AIM: To report the preliminary findings of a PGD study for aneuploidy screening and to discuss the dilemmas encountered. METHODS: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis was offered in egg pick up-PGD and frozen embryo transfer-PGD cycles. Embryo biopsy was carried out on day 3 and FISH was used to detect chromosomal abnormalities. RESULTS: The outcome of 75 patients, 100 treatment cycles; 62 egg pick up-PGD and 38 frozen embryo transfer-PGD are presented. The embryo biopsy rate, blastomere survival, presence of nuclei and successful FISH rates for egg pick-up and frozen embryo transfer cycles were similar giving a chromosomal abnormality rate of 57.5 and 51.2% for the respective treatment group. The positive pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and implantation rates were, for egg pick up-PGD 22.7, 13.6 and 21.1% and for frozen embryo transfer-PGD 13.8, 10.3 and 10.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis coupled with IVF treatment seems to give satisfactory pregnancy rates. The high embryo aneuploidy rates, chromosomal mosaicism and other issues have presented significant ethical and management dilemmas for our physicians and patients alike. These issues highlight the importance of skillful pretreatment counselling for patients considering PGD.