Further delineation of deletion 1p36 syndrome in 60 patients: A recognizable phenotype and common cause of developmental delay and mental retardation

Stella Maris Clinical Research Institute for Child and Adolescent Neurology and Psychiatry, Via dei Giacinti 2, 56018 Calambrone, Pisa, Italy.
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.3). 02/2008; 121(2):404-10. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-0929
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Deletion 1p36 syndrome is a recently delineated disorder, considered to be the most common subtelomeric microdeletion syndrome (1 in 5000 newborns). 1p36.3 deletions account for 0.5% to 1.2% of idiopathic mental retardation; thus, knowledge about the condition is important for pediatricians caring for such patients. Despite 100 reported cases, little is known about its natural history. Our aim was to delineate the natural history of deletion 1p36 and develop complete and accurate information with which to answer families' questions in the clinical setting.
We evaluated 60 patients with the 1p36 deletion syndrome (41 female, 19 male). All underwent physical and neurologic assessments, and most received a psychological evaluation. Standard cytogenetics, fluorescence in situ hybridization of the subtelomeric regions, or array comparative genomic hybridization were used for diagnosis.
Fourteen cases were detected by standard cytogenetics, and 46 were detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization of the subtelomeric regions or array comparative genomic hybridization. Occipitofrontal circumference was at < or = 2nd centile in 95%, and height and weight ranged between the < 3rd and 90th centiles. All patients had straight eyebrows, deep-set eyes, midface hypoplasia, broad nasal root/bridge, long philtrum, and pointed chin. Other features included microbrachycephaly (65%), epicanthus (50%), large, late-closing anterior fontanel (77%), and posteriorly rotated, low-set, abnormal ears (40%). Brachy/camptodactyly and short feet were prominent. Seventy-one percent exhibited heart defects, including 23% with a "noncompaction cardiomyopathy." Fifty-two percent had eye/visual abnormalities, and 64% had visual inattentiveness. Twenty-eight percent had sensorineural deafness, 41% had skeletal anomalies, 25% had abnormal genitalia, and 22% had renal abnormalities. Eighty-eight percent had central nervous system anomalies, and 44% had seizures. All patients demonstrated developmental delay with poor/absent speech; 95% had hypotonia. Twenty-six percent were able to walk alone, and 47% had a behavior disorder. Constant developmental progress was observed in all cases over time. Noncompaction cardiomyopathy and most seizures were controlled by pharmacotherapy.
These 60 patients with deletion 1p36 represent the largest clinical series to date and provide new information on several aspects of this disorder, which is characterized by neurodevelopmental disability and a recognizable pattern of malformation.

  • Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal 10/2014; 10(4):258-9. DOI:10.14797/mdcj-10-4-258
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the seventies genome wide cytogenetic testing by using karyotyping has been a basic genetic examination. Recently a higher resolution DNA microarray technology was developed. Based on a literature review we give an overview of the current status and the advantages of the use of whole genome array diagnostics for routine prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis. Array testing is now commonly used for cytogenetic prenatal diagnosis in cases of ultrasound anomalies, but is not routinely implemented for all indications due to the absence of an internationally accepted policy how to deal with problematic copy number variants (CNVs) such as variants of unknown clinical significance (VOUS), susceptibility loci for neurodevelopmental disorders (SL) and unexpected diagnoses. There is also no consensus about offering patients choices on predefined outcome categories during pre-test counseling. If the patient wishes genome wide testing and is willing to take the risk of an invasive procedure, whole array testing may replace karyotyping if assisted by genetic counseling. In this review we advocate, based on literature and our experience that the advantages of whole genome array as a first-tier diagnostic prenatal test largely overweighs its disadvantages. However, there is still need for a policy on what to report, especially because new challenges, like the feasibility of fetal whole genome screening for both CNV and mutations in maternal plasma, are to be expected coming up in the near future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2014; DOI:10.1002/uog.14745 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe a large family from the Gaza Strip presented with multiple congenital anomalies. The proband was presented with intellectual disability and multiple congenital anomalies including cleft palate, low-set ears, everted upper lip, diaphragmatic hernia, and arthrogryposis. Pedigree analysis showed 19 affected patients over five generations, only 6 were alive and 11 individuals were obligate carriers. The proband had an apparently normal karyotype, although FISH studies showed a derivative chromosome 1 with duplication of 16p13.3 and deletion of the 1p subtelomere. Her father however had a balanced translocation. The seven affected patients had a similar phenotype, one of them died before genetic testing was carried out and the living six patients had the same unbalanced translocation. Array CGH revealed an 8.8 Mb duplication in 16p13 and 200,338 bp deletion in 1p36.3. Accordingly, intellectual disability, hypertelorism, cupped ears, everted upper lip, and limb anomalies were presenting clinical features of the 16p13 duplication syndrome while deep set eyes were perhaps related to the 1p terminal deletion. Prevention of recurrent intellectual disability in this family can be achieved through carrier detection and prenatal genetic diagnosis. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 01/2015; 167(1). DOI:10.1002/ajmg.a.36834 · 2.05 Impact Factor