Open Access

Enrichment of small pathogenic deletions at chromosome 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 involving DOCK8, KANK1, EHMT1 genes identified by using high-resolution oligonucleotide-single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis

Molecular Cytogenetics20169:82

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-016-0291-3

Received: 24 August 2016

Accepted: 1 November 2016

Published: 15 November 2016

Abstract

Background

High-resolution oligo-SNP array allowed the identification of extremely small pathogenic deletions at numerous clinically relevant regions. In our clinical practice, we found that small pathogenic deletions were frequently encountered at chromosome 9p and 9q terminal regions.

Results

A review of 531 cases with reportable copy number changes on chromosome 9 revealed142 pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs): 104 losses, 31 gains, 7 complex chromosomal rearrangements. Of 104 pathogenic losses, 57 were less than 1 Mb in size, enriched at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 regions, involving the DOCK8, KANK1, EHMT1 genes. The remaining 47 cases were due to interstitial or terminal deletions larger than 1 Mb or unbalanced translocations. The small pathogenic deletions of DOCK8, KANK1 and EHMT1 genes were more prevalent than small pathogenic deletions of NRXN1, DMD, SHANK3 genes and were only second to the 16p11.2 deletion syndrome, 593-kb (OMIM #611913).

Conclusions

This study corroborated comprehensive genotype-phenotype large scale studies at 9p24.3 and 9q24.3 regions for a better understanding of the pathogenicity caused by haploinsufficiency of the DOCK8, KANK1 and EHMT1 genes.

Trial registration number

None; it is not a clinical trial, and the cases were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Keywords

Small pathogenic deletions High resolution oligonucleotide-single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis Haploinsufficiency Homozygous deletions

Background

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) has been widely utilized for the genome-wide screening of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes [1]. The sizes of well-known microdeletion and microduplication syndromes were usually larger than 1 Mb, such as 1.4 Mb for Williams-Beuren syndrome (OMIM #194050) or 2.8 Mb for DiGeorge syndrome (OMIM #188400). Small (<1 Mb) pathogenic deletions at regions which were not well characterized were frequently encountered during our daily clinical practice, for instance, the chromosomal regions at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3.

High-resolution oligo-SNP array is able to reveal a variety of chromosomal disorders including uniparental disomy or extremely small pathogenic deletions which would be missed by low-resolution oligonucleotide CMA. Our and other previous studies showed the cases with uniparental disomy were relatively limited in number on chromosome 9 as compared to chromosome 15, 11 and 7 [2, 3]. In contrast, small pathogenic deletions were frequently encountered at chromosome 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 by using high-resolution oligo-SNP array in postnatal studies. Research endeavors have been significantly prioritized to specific genes such as NRXN1 and SHANK3 in the past [4, 5]. To the best of our knowledge, only four cases with small deletions of 192 kb, 225 kb, 465 kb and 518 kb in size at 9p24.3 involving the DOCK8 and/or KANK1 gene [68], and a case of 40 kb deletion in the EHMT1 gene at 9q34.3 [9] have been documented.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate 1): the incidence of small (< 1 Mb) pathogenic deletions in postnatal specimens, 2): whether the small pathogenic deletions at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 constituted a significant proportion of small deletions, 3): what proportion of deletions on chromosome 9 was caused by small pathogenic deletions at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3, 4): the efficacy of identifying extremely small homozygous pathogenic deletions using high-resolution oligo-SNP array.

Results

The incidence of small pathogenic deletions in postnatal specimens studied by high-resolution oligo-SNP array

Approximately 38,000 postnatal specimens were studied by high-resolution oligo-SNP array in our laboratory from 2011 through 2015. Of these, we reported approximately 13,000 (34 %) pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain clinical significance (VOUS). The detection rate was consistent with our previous study [2]. Of the 13,000 variants, a total of 373 recurrent (at least 3 cases) small pathogenic losses were identified (Fig. 1). The 16p11.2 deletion syndrome, 593-kb (OMIM #611913) is the most common small pathogenic loss (107 cases). The remaining involved NRXN1 (35 cases), DMD (31 cases), DOCK8 and/or KANK1 (30 cases), and other chromosomal regions such as 16p11.2 (OMIM #613444, 220-KB), 16p12.2 (OMIM #136570, 520-KB), 22q13.33 (OMIM #606232).
Fig. 1

The recurrent small pathogenic small copy number losses from all the chromosomes. The small pathogenic deletions on chromosome 9, involving DOCK8, KANK1, EHMT1 genes constituted a significant proportion (12 %) of cases

Approximately 12 % of the recurrent small pathogenic copy number losses were caused by deletions of DOCK8 andKANK1 at 9p24.3 and EHMT1 at 9q34.3

The total number of deletions involving DOCK8 and/or KANK1 genes at 9p24.3 (30 cases, Fig. 2) and EHMT1 gene at 9q34.3 (16 cases, Fig. 3a) constituted approximately 12 % (46/373 cases) of the recurrent small pathogenic deletions from all the chromosomes.
Fig. 2

The distribution of deletions in cases with involvement of the DOCK8 and KANK1 genes. The copy number variants in the database of genomic variation were compared to the profile of small deletions in our cohort. Segmental duplications were not flanking the deletions of the DOCK8 and KANK1 genes, which potentially excluded the pathogenic mechanism through non-homologous recombination of segmental duplications

Fig. 3

a The genomic locations of the 16 small (<1 Mb) pathogenic deletions involving the EHMT1 gene. b. A 22-kb deletion (chr9:140,667,619-140,689,934) was found in 32-year-old female with intellectual disability. c A 40-kb deletion (chr9:140,694,541-140,734,178) was identified in a 5-year-old girl. d A 39-kb deletion (chr9:140,650,471-140,689,373) was discovered in a 1-year-old girl with developmental delay, speech and motor delay, white matter changes on MRI, and hypotonia

Small (<1 Mb) and relatively small (1–1.5 Mb) deletions constituted 59 % of pathogenic copy number losses on chromosome 9

Of 13,000 cases with reported copy number variants (CNVs), 531 cases were from chromosome 9, and 142 were pathogenic, including 104 losses, 31 gains, 7 complex chromosomal rearrangements with both losses and gains (Table 1 and Additional file 1: Figure S1). Of 104 pathogenic losses, 57 were smaller than 1 Mb in size. Of 57 cases, 46 were located at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 regions, involving the DOCK8, KANK1, EHMT1 genes. The size ranged from 22 kb (case 54 with EHMT1 deletion) to 790 kb (case 35), with an average of 384 kb (Table 1 and Additional file 2: Table S1). The remaining 47 cases were either resulted from interstitial deletions over 1 Mb in size (18 cases), terminal deletions over 1 Mb (14 cases), or unbalanced translocations (15 cases) that could be as small as 880 kb in size in a t(9;11)(q34.3;p15.4)(case 47, Additional file 2: Table S2). Very interestingly, of these 47 cases, four had relatively small deletions (1–1.5 Mb in size): a 1,048-kb deletion (case 10, Additional file 2: Table S2) involving the PTCH1 gene (OMIM 601309) and diagnosis of Gorlin syndrome (OMIM #109400), a 1,349-kb deletion (case 15) involving the STXBP1 gene and diagnosis of early infantile epileptic encephalopathy (OMIM #612164), and two 9q34.3 deletions of 1,218 kb and 1,268 kb (case 31 and 32). The small (57 cases) and relative small (4 cases) deletions established 59 % (61/104) of pathogenic copy number losses on chromosome 9.
Table 1

Profile of pathogenic copy number losses and gains in chromosome 9

Type or gene involved

Number

Mean, kb

Range, kb

Copy number losses : large

 Interstitial deletion

18

5,070

1,048–16,837

 Terminal deletion

14

5,273

1,218–13,593

 Unbalanced translocation

15

7,053

880–17,107

 Subtotal

47

 

Copy number losses: small

DOCK8

24

299

97–431

KANK1

3

369

184–670

DOCK8 and KANK1

3

419

75–676

EHMT1

16

417

22–790

ASTN2

4

150

78–271

FREM1

2

369

166–573

STXBP1

1

592

NA

COL5A1

1

370

NA

GLDC

1

50

25–75

TOPORS

1

337

NA

CDK5RAP2

1

74

NA

Subtotal

57

 

Large copy number gains

 Trisomy 9p/proximal 9q

15

45,996

13,826–95,453

 9q duplications

6

12,172

6,277–18,399

 Unbalanced translocation

4

25,717

6,794–68,089

 Tetrasomy 9q and proximal 9q due to isochromosome

3

66,477

49,843–81,113

 Trisomy 9

2

140,833

NA

 Triplication

1

15,972

NA

 Subtotal

31

 

Complex chromosomal rearrangements (CCRs)

 Inverted duplication with terminal deletion of 9p

3

Deletion: 6,377; Duplication: 32,271

 Inverted duplication with terminal deletion of 9q

1

Deletion: 161; Duplication: 3,127

 Multiple deletion and duplication

2

Losses: 1091; Gains: 12,517

 Chromothripsis

1

Loss: 134; Gains: 21,094

 Subtotal

7

 

 Total

142

 

NA not applicable

The 9p24.3 (0–2.2 Mb from 9p telomere) and 9q34.3 (137.4–141.2 Mb from 9p telomere) were two hot spots of pathogenic copy number losses on chromosome 9

The 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 regions were two hot spots of copy number losses on chromosome 9. A total of 35 cases majorly involved the 9p24.3 region: 30 small pathogenic deletions (case 1–30, Additional file 2: Table S1), one interstitial deletion (case 1, Additional file 2: Table S2), two terminal deletions (case 19 and 20), and two unbalanced translocations (case 33 and 35). Additionally, 26 cases were localized to 9q34.3 region: 17 small pathogenic deletions (case 41–57, Additional file 2: Table S1), one interstitial deletion (case 18, Additional file 2: Table S2), 5 large terminal deletions (case 28–32) and 3 unbalanced translocations (case 45–47). Overall, close to 60 % (61/104, 59 %) of deletions were localized to the very ends of chromosome 9 at band 9p24.3 and 9q34.3.

Rarely encountered extremely small homozygous pathogenic deletions were discovered in two cases

Extremely small homozygous pathogenic deletions were identified in two cases: 1): a new born baby girl who presented with a metabolic disorder (abnormal reflexes, hypotonia, seizures, and elevated glycine) was revealed to contain a 25-kb homozygous deletion in the GLDC gene, which gave rise to autosomal recessive glycine encephalopathy (nonketotic hyperglycinemia; OMIM #605899). Besides that, a 50-kb heterozygous deletion was also found in the 5′ region of the GLDC gene. Parental study showed the mother was a carrier of a 25-kb heterozygous deletion and the father was a carrier of a 75-kb heterozygous deletion of the GLDC gene. The 25-kb maternally inherited deletion was located within the 75-kb paternally inherited deletion, and therefore inheritance of abnormal allele from both parents led to a 25-kb homozygous and a 50-kb heterozygous deletion in the proband (Fig. 4); 2): a 1-year-old boy was found to have a 74-kb homozygous deletion of the CDK5RAP2 gene in a region of homozygosity (Additional file 3: Figure S2) which led to autosomal recessive primary microcephaly-3 (OMIM #604804). The presence of multiple large regions of homozygosity (a total of 421 Mb) implied these two parents were closely related in blood. The proband inherited the heterozygous abnormal allele with deletion of the CDK5RAP2 gene from both parents.
Fig. 4

Family study of homozygous and heterozygous deletion of the GLDC gene. High-resolution oligo-SNP array analysis of the proband revealed a 25-kb homozygous and a 50-kb heterozygous deletion at the 5′ region of the GLDC gene. These two deletions involved multiple exons and led to autosomal recessive glycine encephalopathy (nonketotic hyperglycinemia; OMIM #605899). Family study showed the mother was a carrier of a 25-kb heterozygous deletion and the father was a carrier of a 75-kb heterozygous deletion of the GLDC gene. The 25-kb maternally inherited deletion was located within the 75-kb paternally inherited deletion, and thus led to a 25-kb homozygous and a 50-kb heterozygous deletion in the proband

Discussion

The subtelomeric region such as 1p36 is known to be gene-rich and prone to have deletions, supported by a study with a large cohort of over 5,000 cases [10]. The cases with subtelomeric rearrangements comprised of about 46 % of all the genomic abnormalities identified by CMA [10]. However, as compared to 1p36, 22q13, 4p16, 5p15, very limited cases at the ends of chromosome 9p and 9q were established [10]. When we reviewed the profile of copy number losses from our database of 38,000 postnatal cases studied by using high-resolution oligo-SNP array and sorted it based on chromosomal regions, we discovered that all the cases with 1p36 deletions were over 1 Mb: 20 cases were 1–3 Mb, eight cases were 3–5 Mb, eight cases were 5–10 Mb and five cases were 10–20 Mb in size (unpublished data). In contrast, 61 of 104 pathogenic deletions on chromosome 9 were either smaller than 1 Mb (57 cases) or between 1 and 1.5 Mb (4 cases). This finding demonstrated that the size of copy number losses conspicuously varied between chromosomal regions. In the clinical practice, the concept of vigilant selecting appropriate methods to characterize the genomic losses at different regions becomes essentially important. For instance, FISH analysis using subtelomeric or locus-specific probe may be approriate to identify 1p36 microdeletions, but may miss cases with small deletions on chromosome 9.

Extremely small intragenic deletion of the EHMT1 gene was only reported in one case: a 40-kb intragenic deletion of the EHMT1 gene with uncertain phenotypic consequence [9]. A more recent update on Kleefstra syndrome exhibited that the 16 newly diagnosed 9q34.3 deletions were all larger than 200 kb [11]. In our cohort, we identified a total of 24 cases with 9q34.3 deletions: 16 with small (<1 Mb) deletions involving the EHMT1 gene (case 42–57, Additional file 2: Table S1), 5 with terminal deletion of 9q (case 28–32, Additional file 2: Table S2), and 3 with small (880–1001 kb in size) 9q34.3 deletions due to unbalanced translocations (case 45–47, Additional file 2: Table S2). Remarkably, we brought about three extremely small (22 kb, 39 kb and 40 kb in size) intragenic deletions of the EHMT1 gene and all were clustered at the 3′ end of the gene (Fig. 3, b-d). The 22-kb deletion (Fig. 3b) was identified in a 32-year-old female with intellectual disability; whereas, the 40-kb deletion (Fig. 3c) was found in a 5-year-old girl and the 39-kb deletion (Fig. 3d) was discovered in a 1-year-old girl with typical features of 9q34.3 deletion including developmental delay, speech and motor delay, and hypotonia [9]. In addition, a 26-year-old male with a 165-kb deletion involving EHMT1 and CACNA1B gene (case 57, Additional file 2: Table S1) also presented clinical features which were typical for 9q34.3 deletion syndromes including mental retardation, developmental delay, speech delay, motor delay, learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, asymmetry of temporal lobe, localized polymicrogyria, loping gait and scoliosis [11].

In contrast to the EHMT1 gene of which haploinsufficiency score was much better established by ClinGen (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/dbvar/clingen/), the sensitivity to haploinsufficiency for DOCK8 and KANK1 genes was not proven (Additional file 2: Table S3). There were two unrelated patients with mental retardation and developmental disability (MRD2; OMIM #614113) who were disclosed to have a heterozygous disruption of the longest isoform of the DOCK8 gene by either deletion or a translocation of t(X;9) [12]. A recent report of another two patients with almost identical deletion involving both DOCK8 and KANK1 displayed two distinct phenotypes [6]. The study of a four-generation with a 225-kb deletion of the KANK1 gene implied that an imprinting mechanism may play a role in the phenotypic variation in this family. The authors suggested KANK1 is a maternally imprinted gene and only expressed in the paternal allele [8]. However, other report did not support this finding [7]. In our cohort, deletions of KANK1 were found in 6 cases (case 25–30, Additional file 2: Table S1). There were not enough clinical data to determine whether KANK1 is a maternally imprinted gene. On the other hand, DOCK8 gene is unlikely to be maternally imprinted since the two half-brothers (a 2-year-old boy and a 7-year-old boy, case 13 and 14, Additional file 2: Table S1) both inherited the deleted DOCK8 allele from the same mother. In addition, our patients with small deletions of the DOCK8 gene had very strong family history (case 13/14, 17, 20/21 Additional file 2: Table S1) and shared similar clinical features, including developmental delay and intellectual disability (4 out of 5 cases), speech and motor delay (3), learning disability (2), behavior problems or autism (3), macrocephaly (2), dysmorphic or congenital anomalies (4). Our cohort provided additional pathogenic evidence for haploinsufficiency of DOCK8 gene.

Although extremely rare, two cases with homozygous deletions of GLDC and CDK5RAP2 genes were discovered in this cohort. In our previous study, we demonstrated the autosomal recessive disorders could be linked to regions of homozygosity (ROH) containing gene with point mutation which was inherited from related parents [2]. In this study, we showed additional two cases with autosomal recessive disorders which can be identified by high-resolution oligo-SNP array. The first was due to inheritance of allele with heterozygous deletion of different size from each carrier parent, which led to a homozygous deletion of GLDC gene (Fig. 4). The second was a homozygous deletion of the CDK5RAP2 gene, inherited from closely related parents who carried the same heterozygous deletion (Additional file 3: Figure S2A). These two cases proved the efficacy of using high-resolution oligo-SNP array in the identification of extremely small homozygous pathogenic deletions.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated 1): the incidence of recurrent small pathogenic deletions (< 1 Mb) was approximately 3 % (373/13,000) of all reported CNVs; 2): the small pathogenic deletions at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 constituted 12 % of small pathogenic deletions from all the chromosomes, 3): 59 % of pathogenic deletions on chromosome 9 were due to small (<1 Mb) or relatively small (1–1.5 Mb) pathogenic deletions; 4): 81 % (46/57) of small pathogenic deletions were enriched at 9p24.3 and 9q34.3 regions involving the DOCK8, KANK1 and EHMT1 genes; 5): high-resolution oligo-SNP array was capable of identifying homozygous deletions as small as 25 kb in size.

Methods

Patients

Patients with a broad range of clinical indications including intellectual disability, developmental delay, multiple congenital anomalies, dysmorphic features and pervasive developmental disorders were referred to our laboratory for oligo-SNP array studies. The data for this study were compiled from de-identified results of 38,000 consecutive patient specimens referred to our laboratory for constitutional oligo-SNP array study from 2011 to 2015. The patients were majorly from general population in the United States, with < 5 % from Mexico and other countries.

Oligonucleotide-single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis platforms and threshold setting

Oligo-SNP array analysis was performed on either Human SNP Array 6.0 (in 2011) or CytoScan® HD (2012–2015)(Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA), using genomic DNA extracted from whole blood. The Human SNP Array 6.0 has 1.8 million genetic markers, including about 906,600 SNPs and 946,000 probes for the detection of CNVs. The CytoScan® HD has more than 2.67 million probes, including 1.9 million non-polymorphic copy number probes and 750,000 SNP probes. The overall resolutions are approximately 1.7 kb for Human SNP Array 6.0 and 1.15 kb for CytoScan® HD. For chromosome 9, the probes for Human SNP Array 6.0 covered: 9p(chr9:37,747-47,217,164) and 9q(chr9:65,596,318-141,091,382); for CytoScan HD®: 9p (chr9:192,129-40,784,142, chr9:43,400,082-44,900,526) and 9q (chr9:66,837,485-141,025,328). Genomic coordinates were based upon genome build 37/hg19 (2009). Hybridization, data extraction, and analysis were performed as per manufacturers’ protocols. The Affymetrix® Chromosome Analysis Suite (ChAS) Software version 2.0 was used for data analysis, review, and reporting. For genome-wide screening, thresholds were set at > 200 kb for gains and > 50 kb for losses. For cytogenetically relevant regions, thresholds were set at > 100 kb for gains and > 20 kb for losses. Benign CNVs that are documented in the database of genomic variations (http://dgv.tcag.ca/dgv/app/home?ref=GRCh37/hg19) and present in the general population were excluded from reporting.

Abbreviations

CMA: 

Chromosomal microarray analysis

CNV: 

Copy number variant

FISH: 

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

ISCN: 

International System of Cytogenetic Nomenclature

Oligo-SNP array: 

Oligonucleotide-single nucleotide polymorphism array

UPD: 

Uniparental disomy

VOUS: 

Variants of uncertain clinical significance

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge that Andrew Hellman and Jeff Radcliff provided valuable assistance in manuscript revisions.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data and materials used for this study have been de-identified and were freely available to any scientist wishing to use them without breaching participant confidentiality.

Authors’ contributions

J-CW – reviewing, verification, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting and revising the article, final approval of the version to be published. LWM – acquisition, reviewing and analysis of data. LPR - acquisition, reviewing and analysis of data. AA - conception and design, interpretation of data. RO - interpretation of data. FZB - interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable since this manuscript did not contain any individual’s personal data in any form.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This manuscript is a retrospective case report that does not require ethics committee approval at our institution. Consent was considered not required because the cases reported here were anonymous and de-identified.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cytogenetics Laboratory, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute

References

  1. Watson CT, Marques-Bonet T, Sharp AJ, Mefford HC. The genetics of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes: an update. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2014;15:215–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Wang JC, Ross L, Mahon LW, Owen R, Hemmat M, Wang BT, El Naggar M, Kopita KA, Randolph LM, Chase JM, Matas Aguilera MJ, Siles JL, Church JA, Hauser N, Shen JJ, Jones MC, Wierenga KJ, Jiang Z, Haddadin M, Boyar FZ, Anguiano A, Strom CM, Sahoo T. Regions of homozygosity identified by oligonucleotide SNP arrays: evaluating the incidence and clinical utility. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:663–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Liehr T. Cytogenetic contribution to uniparental disomy (UPD). Mol Cytogenet. 2010;3:8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bena F, Bruno DL, Eriksson M, van Ravenswaaij-Arts C, Stark Z, Dijkhuizen T, Gerkes E, Gimelli S, Ganesamoorthy D, Thuresson AC, Labalme A, Till M, Bilan F, Pasquier L, Kitzis A, Dubourgm C, Rossi M, Bottani A, Gagnebin M, Sanlaville D, Gilbert-Dussardier B, Guipponi M, van Haeringen A, Kriek M, Ruivenkamp C, Antonarakis SE, Anderlid BM, Slater HR, Schoumans J. Molecular and clinical characterization of 25 individuals with exonic deletions of NRXN1 and comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2013;162B:388–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Soorya L, Kolevzon A, Zweifach J, Lim T, Dobry Y, Schwartz L, Frank Y, Wang AT, Cai G, Parkhomenko E, Halpern D, Grodberg D, Angarita B, Willner JP, Yang A, Canitano R, Chaplin W, Betancur C, Buxbaum JD. Prospective investigation of autism and genotype-phenotype correlations in 22q13 deletion syndrome and SHANK3 deficiency. Mol Autism. 2013;4:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Tassano E, Accogli A, Pavanello M, Bruno C, Capra V, Gimelli G, Cuoco C. Interstitial 9p24.3 deletion involving only DOCK8 and KANK1 genes in two patients with non-overlapping phenotypic traits. Eur J Med Genet. 2016;59:20–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vanzo RJ, Martin MM, Sdano MR, South ST. Familial KANK1 deletion that does not follow expected imprinting pattern. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56:256–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lerer I, Sagi M, Meiner V, Cohen T, Zlotogora J, Abeliovich D. Deletion of the ANKRD15 gene at 9p24.3 causes parent-of-origin-dependent inheritance of familial cerebral palsy. Hum Mol Genet. 2005;14:3911–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kleefstra T, van Zelst-Stams WA, Nillesen WM, Cormier-Daire V, Houge G, Foulds N, van Dooren M, Willemsen MH, Pfundt R, Turner A, Wilson M, McGaughran J, Rauch A, Zenker M, Adam MP, Innes M, Davies C, Lopez AG, Casalone R, Weber A, Brueton LA, Navarro AD, Bralo MP, Venselaar H, Stegmann SP, Yntema HG, van Bokhoven H, Brunner HG. Further clinical and molecular delineation of the 9q subtelomeric deletion syndrome supports a major contribution of EHMT1 haploinsufficiency to the core phenotype. J Med Genet. 2009;46:598–606.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Shao L, Shaw CA, Lu XY, Sahoo T, Bacino CA, Lalani SR, Stankiewicz P, Yatsenko SA, Li Y, Neill S, Pursley AN, Chinault AC, Patel A, Beaudet AL, Lupski JR, Cheung SW. Identification of chromosome abnormalities in subtelomeric regions by microarray analysis: a study of 5,380 cases. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A:2242–51.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Willemsen MH, Vulto-van Silfhout AT, Nillesen WM, Wissink-Lindhout WM, van Bokhoven H, Philip N, Berry-Kravis EM, Kini U, van Ravenswaaij-Arts CM, Delle Chiaie B, Innes AM, Houge G, Kosonen T, Cremer K, Fannemel M, Stray-Pedersen A, Reardon W, Ignatius J, Lachlan K, Mircher C, van den Enden PT H, Mastebroek M, Cohn-Hokke PE, Yntema HG, Drunat S, Kleefstra T. Update on Kleefstra Syndrome. Mol Syndromol. 2012;2:202–12.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Griggs BL, Ladd S, Saul RA, DuPont BR, Srivastava AK. Dedicator of cytokinesis 8 is disrupted in two patients with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Genomics. 2008;91:195–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement