» Articles » PMID: 34284807

Clinical Significance and Mechanisms Associated with Segmental UPD

Overview
Journal Mol Cytogenet
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Biochemistry
Date 2021 Jul 21
PMID 34284807
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Whole chromosome uniparental disomy (UPD) has been well documented with mechanisms largely understood. However, the etiology of segmental limited UPD (segUPD) is not as clear. In a 10-year period of confirming (> 300) cases of whole chromosome UPD, we identified 86 segmental cases in both prenatal and postnatal samples. Thirty-two of these cases showed mosaic segmental UPD at 11p due to somatic selection associated with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. This study focuses on apparent mechanisms associated with the remaining cases, many of which appear to represent corrections of genomic imbalance such as deletions and derivative chromosomes. In some cases, segmental UPD was associated with the generation of additional genomic imbalance while in others it apparently resulted in restoration of euploidy. Multiple tests utilizing noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniotic fluid samples from the same pregnancy revealed temporal evidence of correction and a "hotspot" at 1p. Although in many cases the genomic imbalance was dosage "repaired" in the analyzed tissue, clinical effects could be sustained due to early developmental effects of the original imbalance or due to its continued existence in other tissues. In addition, if correction did not occur in the gametes there would be recurrence risks for the offspring of those individuals. Familial microarray allele patterns are presented that differentiate lack of gamete correction from somatic derived gonadal mosaicism. These results suggest that the incidence of segUPD mediated correction is underestimated and may explain the etiology of some clinical phenotypes which are undetected by routine microarray analysis and many exome sequencing studies.

Citing Articles

Biliverdinuria Caused by Exonic Deletions in Two Dogs with Green Urine.

Furrow E, Peralta J, Moore A, Minor K, Guerrero C, Hemmila C Genes (Basel). 2025; 15(12.

PMID: 39766828 PMC: 11675387. DOI: 10.3390/genes15121561.


Uniparental IsoDisomy: a case study on a new mechanism of Friedreich ataxia.

Sperelakis-Beedham B, Gitiaux C, Rajaoba M, Magen M, Derive N, Chansard J Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; 33(1):137-140.

PMID: 39496895 PMC: 11711457. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01728-2.


An Incidental Detection of a Rare UPD in SNP-Array Based PGT-SR: A Case Report.

Ma Y, Wang J, Wen T, Xu Y, Huang L, Mai Q Reprod Sci. 2024; 31(9):2893-2899.

PMID: 38780745 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-024-01598-5.


Case Report: Decrypting an interchromosomal insertion associated with Marfan's syndrome: how optical genome mapping emphasizes the morbid burden of copy-neutral variants.

Bonaglia M, Salvo E, Sironi M, Bertuzzo S, Errichiello E, Mattina T Front Genet. 2023; 14:1244983.

PMID: 37811140 PMC: 10551147. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1244983.

References
1.
Keppler-Noreuil K, Parker V, Darling T, Martinez-Agosto J . Somatic overgrowth disorders of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway & therapeutic strategies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2016; 172(4):402-421. PMC: 5592089. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31531. View

2.
Zuffardi O, Bonaglia M, Ciccone R, Giorda R . Inverted duplications deletions: underdiagnosed rearrangements??. Clin Genet. 2009; 75(6):505-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01187.x. View

3.
Papenhausen P, Schwartz S, Risheg H, Keitges E, Gadi I, Burnside R . UPD detection using homozygosity profiling with a SNP genotyping microarray. Am J Med Genet A. 2011; 155A(4):757-68. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33939. View

4.
Kucinska-Chahwan A, Bijok J, Dabkowska S, Jozwiak A, Ilnicka A, Nowakowska B . Targeted prenatal diagnosis of Pallister-Killian syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2017; 37(5):446-452. DOI: 10.1002/pd.5030. View

5.
Lefkowitz R, Tynan J, Liu T, Wu Y, Mazloom A, Almasri E . Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(2):227.e1-227.e16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.030. View