✍ Scribed by T�mer, Zeynep; Wolff, Daynna; Silahtaroglu, Asli N.; �rum, Alena; Br�ndum-Nielsen, Karen
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
We describe two female patients mosaic for a cell line with an extra marker X chromosome in addition to a normal 46,XX cell line. To our knowledge, these cases are the first reports of females who had a cell line with a supernumerary marker X chromosome in addition to a normal cell line. They also had strikingly similar manifestations, including small hands and feet, minor facial anomalies, obesity, and mental retardation. The DNA content of the mar(X) chromosomes was investigated by fluorescent in situ hybridization using pericentromeric probes. The XIST gene, which is necessary for initiation of X-inactivation, was deleted from both marker chromosomes, suggesting that these chromosomes were not subject to inactivation. The short arm breakpoints of the mar(X)s were between the DNA markers DXS423E on Xp11.21 and UBE1 on Xp11.23. In Patient 1, mar(X) contained the androgen receptor gene and the DNA marker DXS1, both mapping to Xq11.2, whereas in Patient 2 the chromosome breakpoint was proximal to these markers. We suggest that the similar phenotypes of these patients may be due to the overexpression of genes in the common pericentromeric region of the X chromosome. Am.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
Only a few reports on supernumerary r(1) chromosomes associated with a clinical phenotype have been published. We describe two unrelated patients with congenital malformations and developmental delay who were found to have a de novo supernumerary r(1) in 50% (Case 1) and 80% (Case 2) of the examined
We describe a 38-year-old adult who has a supernumerary marker chromosome in 40% of metaphase cells which was identified by reverse in situ hybridization with a DNA probe made by microdissection to be derived from chromosome 17. The breakpoints are estimated by G-banding and fluorescence in situ hyb
A father and his 2 daughters were previously determined to carry a small, supernumerary marker chromosome [Chudley et al., 1983]. The origin of this marker could not be determined by standard cytogenetic techniques. In this study, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies identified the mark
The study of the neurobehavioral consequences of mutations of FMR1, the gene responsible for fragile X syndrome (FraX), has been based largely on correlations between mutation patterns and cognitive profile. Following the characterization of FMRP, the FMR1 gene product, preliminary correlations betw