Issues arising from the prenatal diagnosis of some rare trisomy mosaics--the importance of cryptic fetal mosaicism.

OBJECTIVES: To add to the knowledge of fetal mosaicism, confined placental mosaicism (CPM), and uniparental disomy (UPD), in rare trisomies detected at prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: The origin of rare trisomy mosaics, mostly (8/11) seen in amniocytes, was examined in 11 cases by follow-up karyotyping and the study of microsatellite inheritance. RESULTS: Of the rare trisomies presented, three were mosaic trisomy 16 (two of which were CPM), and the remainder comprised single cases of mosaic trisomies of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 5 and 15--the last two being CPM. Cases varied in parental derivation and meiotic versus post-zygotic origin but no case involved UPD. There was evidence for cryptic fetal mosaicism in three cases (5, 7, 11)--involving chromosomes 11, 14 and 16. CONCLUSIONS: These cases contribute further data to phenotypes associated with rare trisomies and the relative influences on the phenotype of CPM, UPD and fetal mosaicism. From sparse published data, we estimate that approximately 10% of apparent CPM cases for a rare trisomy (i.e. aneuploid CVS, normal amniocytes) may actually be cryptic fetal mosaics undetected in cultured amniocytes. In many cases, this cryptic mosaicism may be of limited clinical significance, but in others, the associated phenotypic effects may be obvious. There is no general approach to resolve this issue; the finding of even a few similar aneuploid cells in different amniocyte culture vessels may be clinically significant. It may be useful to study such an amniocyte culture with FISH with the relevant centromeric probe. Careful follow-up is recommended, particularly for infants where apparent correction of autosomal trisomy has occurred.

A series of supernumerary small ring marker autosomes identified by FISH with chromosome probe arrays and literature review excluding chromosome 15.

Seven supernumerary small ring marker autosomes were studied. The pantelomere probe (Oncor) in conjunction with scoring for dicentric rings was used to confirm ring morphology. The small rings were identified mainly by FISH with chromosome probe arrays (Cytocell) containing representations from all 24 chromosomes and the rings were derived from chromosomes 7, 8 (three cases), 11, 12, and 14. The effectiveness of the array methodology in identifying markers was tested. Microsatellite DNA data showed biparental disomy (BPD) was present for the rings from chromosomes 7 and 14 thereby excluding UPD, both were de novo but the ring 14 was of paternal origin. The literature on supernumerary small ring autosomes was reviewed excluding chromosome 15. The grade and distribution of mosaicism was invoked as the major determinant of the differences in phenotype and, in addition, variation was attributed to the possibility of different contributions from each chromosome arm. There are 88 published supernumerary small ring cases in total, with phenotypic data attributable to the respective rings in 77 cases and all chromosomes being represented except chromosome 17. Of the prenatally ascertained cases, where there was adequate phenotypic data, 30% had an abnormal phenotype attributable to the ring, and there were 44% familial cases in this group. Of the postnatally ascertained small rings, 75% had an abnormal phenotype attributable to the ring and there were 13% familial cases. This higher abnormality rate is concordant with the considerable ascertainment bias of this latter group and the prenatal data are recommended for genetic counseling. Although data are small there were some differences between the rings derived from different chromosomes. Chromosomes 3 and 8 demonstrate the extremes. Of the supernumerary small r(8) cases reviewed including the three presently described, 8/11 had an abnormal phenotype attributable to the marker but of the small r(3) cases, only 1/6 had an abnormal phenotype. Two of the present r(8) were studied with the GATA4 probe at 8p23.1. The r(8) in case 2 (patient moderately retarded) was comprised mostly of an intact 8p whereas the larger r(8) in case 3 (normal phenotype) was missing 8p23.1 --> pter and had more of 8q contributing to the ring. In other supernumerary rings postnatally ascertained, there is mostly insufficient data but there is an abnormal phenotype in 8/11 cases with multiple small rings, in 5/6 cases with r(20), and in 5/10 with r(1). A novel origin for supernumerary small rings is proposed: that they may originate from incompletely digested superfluous (haploid) pronuclei. The small rings presumptively so formed may occasionally be transfected into the zygote nucleus. The high proportion ( approximately 12.5%) of cases with multiple supernumerary small rings almost always of different centromeric origin is consistent with this concept.

Recombinants of intrachromosomal transposition of subtelomeres in chromosomes 1 and 2: a cause of minute terminal chromosomal imbalances.

Two cases of submicroscopic recombinants of intrachromosomal transposition of telomeres, one each from chromosome 1 and 2 are described. Meiotic crossing-over would generate the recombinants from these reciprocal rearrangements. In both cases, which were detected by FISH with subtelomeric probes, there is a minute deletion of the qter region and a second presence of the pter subtelomeric region on the respective qter, i.e., a duplication of 1pter or 2pter respectively. The deletion on 2qter (case 2) was confirmed by microsatellite inheritance and was of paternal origin, but in case 1 there was no detectable 1q deletion other than of the subtelomeric probe, and parental origin could not be determined. The present case 2 with del(2qter)/dup(2pter) shares many features with reported cases of simple deletion (2qter) but did not have features of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy, which are seen in half of such deletion patients. The clinical features present in case 1 were similar to those of the previously reported case of a submicroscopic 1qter deletion but also to cases with microscopically visible 1qter deletions, presumably because of gene enrichment in subtelomeric regions. Recombinants of such intrachromosomal subtelomere transpositions detected by subtelomeric probes may comprise up to 10% of submicroscopic pter or qter deletion cases. Other cases of this unusual mechanism may be detected with more common use of subtelomeric probes. It is suggested the bouquet associations of telomeres in early meiosis may facilitate such unusual rearrangements.

Chromosome 13q neocentromeres: molecular cytogenetic characterization of three additional cases and clinical spectrum.

We report three new cases of chromosome 13 derived marker chromosomes, found in unrelated patients with dysmorphisms and/or developmental delay. Molecular cytogenetic analysis was performed using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with chromosome-specific painting probes, alpha satellite probes, and physically mapped probes from chromosome 13q, as well as comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). This analysis demonstrated that these markers consisted of inversion duplications of distal portions of chromosome 13q that have separated from the endogenous chromosome 13 centromere and contain no detectable alpha satellite DNA. The presence of a functional neocentromere on these marker chromosomes was confirmed by immunofluorescence with antibodies to centromere protein-C (CENP-C). The cytogenetic location of a neocentromere in band 13q32 was confirmed by simultaneous FISH with physically mapped YACs from 13q32 and immunofluorescence with anti-CENP-C. The addition of these three new cases brings the total number of described inv dup 13q neocentic chromosomes to 11, representing 21% (11/52) of the current overall total of 52 described cases of human neocentric chromosomes. This higher than expected frequency suggests that chromosome 13q may have an increased propensity for neocentromere formation. The clinical spectrum of all 11 cases is presented, representing a unique collection of polysomy for different portions of chromosome 13q without aneuploidies for additional chromosomal regions. The complexity and variability of the phenotypes seen in these patients does not support a simple reductionist view of phenotype/genotype correlation with polysomy for certain chromosomal regions.