Characterization of 23 small supernumerary marker chromosomes detected at pre-natal diagnosis: The value of fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs) cannot be identified or characterized unambiguously by conventional cytogenetic banding techniques. Until recently, the large variety of marker chromosomes, as well as the limitations in their identification, have presented a diagnostic problem. In order to determine the origin of sSMCs, we used a variety of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods, including centromere-specific multicolor FISH, acrocentric specific multicolor FISH, subcentromere-specific multicolor FISH and multicolor FISH with whole chromosome paint probes. Moreover, uniparental disomy testing was in all cases attempted. From a total of 28,000 pre-natal samples from four diagnostic genetics laboratories in Greece, 23 (0.082%) supernumerary marker chromosomes were detected. The mean maternal age was 36.2 years (range 27-43) and the mean gestational age at which amniocentesis was performed was 18.5 weeks (range 16-23). Eighteen markers were de novo and 5 markers were inherited. Molecular cytogenetic methods were applied to determine the chromosomal origin and composition of the sSMC. In total, 17 markers were derived from acrocentric chromosomes (14, 15, 21 and 22) and 6 markers were non-acrocentric, derived from chromosomes 9, 16, 18, 20 and Y. Uniparental disomy was not detected in any of the cases studied. With regard to pregnancy outcome, 13 pregnancies resulted in normal healthy neonates, while 10 pregnancies were terminated due to ultrasound abnormalities. A total of 23 marker chromosomes from 28,000 pre-natal samples (0.082%) were identified. Molecular cytogenetic techniques provided valuable information on the chromosomal origin and composition of all the sSMCs. Especially in cases with normal ultrasound, the FISH results rendered genetic counseling possible in a category of cases previously considered a diagnostic problem. Abnormal outcome was observed in 10 cases (43,5%), 7 of which showed abnormal ultrasound findings. New technologies, such as array-comparative genomic hybridization, should be used in future genotype-phenotype correlation studies, although the high mosaicism rate poses a problem.

[1]  T. Liehr Small Supernumerary Marker Chromosomes (sSMC) , 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[2]  T. Liehr,et al.  Characterization of a prenatally assessed de novo supernumerary minute ring chromosome 20 in a phenotypically normal male , 2009, Molecular Cytogenetics.

[3]  T. Liehr,et al.  Frequency of small supernumerary marker chromosomes in prenatal, newborn, developmentally retarded and infertility diagnostics. , 2007, International journal of molecular medicine.

[4]  M. Thangavelu,et al.  Supernumerary marker chromosomes detected in 100 000 prenatal diagnoses: molecular cytogenetic studies and clinical significance , 2006, Prenatal diagnosis.

[5]  P. Kozlowski,et al.  Forty-two supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMCs) in 43 273 prenatal samples: chromosomal distribution, clinical findings, and UPD studies , 2005, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  M. Norton,et al.  Prenatal Diagnosis of Minute Supernumerary Marker Chromosomes , 2005, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation.

[7]  M. Pinto,et al.  Supernumerary ring chromosome 20 in a mother and her child , 2005, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[8]  T. Liehr,et al.  Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) in humans , 2004, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[9]  A. Dufke,et al.  Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMCs): genotype-phenotype correlation and classification , 2003, Human Genetics.

[10]  V. Trifonov,et al.  Enlarged chromosome 13 p‐arm hiding a cryptic partial trisomy 6p22.2‐pter , 2003, Prenatal diagnosis.

[11]  T. Liehr,et al.  Chromosome 2 aberrations in clinical cases characterised by high resolution multicolour banding and region specific FISH probes , 2002, Journal of medical genetics.

[12]  V. Trifonov,et al.  Microdissection based high resolution multicolor banding for all 24 human chromosomes. , 2002, International journal of molecular medicine.

[13]  D. Ledbetter,et al.  American College of Medical Genetics Statement on Diagnostic Testing for Uniparental Disomy , 2001, Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

[14]  M. Rocchi,et al.  A new multicolor-FISH approach for the characterization of marker chromosomes: centromere-specific multicolor-FISH (cenM-FISH) , 2001, Human Genetics.

[15]  Marilyn M. Li,et al.  Characterization and clinical implications of marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis , 2000, Prenatal diagnosis.

[16]  E. Zackai,et al.  Clustered 11q23 and 22q11 breakpoints and 3:1 meiotic malsegregation in multiple unrelated t(11;22) families. , 1999, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  T. Lörch,et al.  High resolution multicolor-banding: a new technique for refined FISH analysis of human chromosomes , 1999, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[18]  V. Emiliani,et al.  Formation of supernumerary euchromatic short arm isochromosomes: parent and cell stage of origin in new cases and review of the literature. , 1999, Annales de genetique.

[19]  H. Engels,et al.  Delineation of supernumerary marker chromosomes in 38 patients. , 1998, American journal of medical genetics.

[20]  J. Crolla,et al.  FISH and molecular study of autosomal supernumerary marker chromosomes excluding those derived from chromosomes 15 and 22: I. Results of 26 new cases. , 1998, American journal of medical genetics.

[21]  H. Engels,et al.  Identification of supernumerary der(20) chromosomes by FISH in three patients. , 1997, American journal of medical genetics.

[22]  R. Verma,et al.  Marker chromosomes in fetal loss. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[23]  G. Silvestri,et al.  FISH characterization of small supernumerary marker chromosomes in two Prader-Willi patients. , 1997, American journal of medical genetics.

[24]  I. Vallcorba,et al.  Genetic counselling in a prenatal marker chromosome identified as an i (18p) by in situ hybridization. , 1996, Annales de genetique.

[25]  T. Liehr,et al.  FISH analysis of interphase nuclei extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue. , 1995, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[26]  K. Blakemore,et al.  An accessory marker derived from chromosome 20 and its co‐existence with a mosaic trisomy 20 cell line , 1995, Prenatal diagnosis.

[27]  E. Zackai,et al.  Cytogenetic and molecular characterization of inverted duplicated chromosomes 15 from 11 patients. , 1994, American journal of human genetics.

[28]  A. Pelliccia,et al.  Inv dup(15): contribution to the clinical definition of phenotype , 1994, Clinical genetics.

[29]  S. Schwartz,et al.  Molecular cytogenetic analysis of inv dup(15) chromosomes, using probes specific for the Prader-Willi/Angelman syndrome region: clinical implications. , 1994, American journal of human genetics.

[30]  W. Robinson,et al.  Uniparental disomy explains the occurrence of the Angelman or Prader-Willi syndrome in patients with an additional small inv dup(15) chromosome. , 1993, Journal of medical genetics.

[31]  E. Blennow,et al.  Characterization of supernumerary ring marker chromosomes by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). , 1993, American journal of human genetics.

[32]  H. Weier,et al.  Characterization of i(18p) in prenatal diagnosis by fluorescence in situ hybridization , 1993, Prenatal diagnosis.

[33]  D. Warburton,et al.  De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. , 1991, American journal of human genetics.

[34]  E. Haan,et al.  Chromosomal origin of small ring marker chromosomes in man: characterization by molecular genetics. , 1991, American journal of human genetics.

[35]  G. Kohn,et al.  Tetrasomy 18p in a child with trisomy 18 phenotype. , 1990, American journal of medical genetics.

[36]  E. Hook,et al.  Extra structurally abnormal chromosomes (ESAC) detected at amniocentesis: frequency in approximately 75,000 prenatal cytogenetic diagnoses and associations with maternal and paternal age. , 1987, American journal of human genetics.

[37]  J. Yates,et al.  Maternal age specific rates for chromosome aberrations and factors influencing them: Report of a collaborative european study on 52 965 amniocenteses , 1984, Prenatal diagnosis.