Absence of cutaneous neurofibromas in an NF1 patient with an atypical deletion partially overlapping the common 1.4 Mb microdeleted region

Atypical NF1 Microdeletions: Challenges and Opportunities for Genotype/Phenotype Correlations in Patients with Large NF1 Deletions

Patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and type 1 NF1 deletions often exhibit more severe clinical manifestations than patients with intragenic NF1 gene mutations, including facial dysmorphic features, overgrowth, severe global developmental delay, severe autistic symptoms and considerably reduced cognitive abilities, all of which are detectable from a very young age. Type 1 NF1 deletions encompass 1.4 Mb and are associated with the loss of 14 protein-coding genes, including NF1 and SUZ12. Atypical NF1 deletions, which do not encompass all 14 protein-coding genes located within the type 1 NF1 deletion region, have the potential to contribute to the delineation of the genotype/phenotype relationship in patients with NF1 microdeletions. Here, we review all atypical NF1 deletions reported to date as well as the clinical phenotype observed in the patients concerned. We compare these findings with those of a newly identified atypical NF1 deletion of 698 kb which, in addition to the NF1 gene, includes five genes located centromeric to NF1. The atypical NF1 deletion in this patient does not include the SUZ12 gene but does encompass CRLF3. Comparative analysis of such atypical NF1 deletions suggests that SUZ12 hemizygosity is likely to contribute significantly to the reduced cognitive abilities, severe global developmental delay and facial dysmorphisms observed in patients with type 1 NF1 deletions.

Genotype-Phenotype Associations in Patients With Type-1, Type-2, and Atypical NF1 Microdeletions

Neurofibromatosis type 1 is a tumor predisposition syndrome inherited in autosomal dominant manner. Besides the intragenic loss-of-function mutations in NF1 gene, large deletions encompassing the NF1 gene and its flanking regions are responsible for the development of the variable clinical phenotype. These large deletions titled as NF1 microdeletions lead to a more severe clinical phenotype than those observed in patients with intragenic NF1 mutations. Around 5-10% of the cases harbor large deletion and four major types of NF1 microdeletions (type 1, 2, 3 and atypical) have been identified so far. They are distinguishable in term of their size and the location of the breakpoints, by the frequency of somatic mosaicism with normal cells not harboring the deletion and by the number of the affected genes within the deleted region. In our study genotype-phenotype analyses have been performed in 17 mostly pediatric patients with NF1 microdeletion syndrome identified by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification after systematic sequencing of the NF1 gene. Confirmation and classification of the NF1 large deletions were performed using array comparative genomic hybridization, where it was feasible. In our patient cohort 70% of the patients possess type-1 deletion, one patient harbors type-2 deletion and 23% of our cases have atypical NF1 deletion. All the atypical deletions identified in this study proved to be novel. One patient with atypical deletion displayed mosaicism. In our study NF1 microdeletion patients presented dysmorphic facial features, macrocephaly, large hands and feet, delayed cognitive development and/or learning difficulties, speech difficulties, overgrowth more often than patients with intragenic NF1 mutations. Moreover, neurobehavior problems, macrocephaly and overgrowth were less frequent in atypical cases compared to type-1 deletion. Proper diagnosis is challenging in certain patients since several clinical manifestations show age-dependency. Large tumor load exhibited more frequently in this type of disorder, therefore better understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations and progress of the disease is essential for individuals suffering from neurofibromatosis to improve the quality of their life. Our study presented additional clinical data related to NF1 microdeletion patients especially for pediatric cases and it contributes to the better understanding of this type of disorder.

Cutaneous neurofibromas in the genomics era: current understanding and open questions

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are a nearly ubiquitous symptom of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), a disorder with a broad phenotypic spectrum caused by germline mutation of the neurofibromatosis type 1 tumour suppressor gene (NF1). Symptoms of NF1 can include learning disabilities, bone abnormalities and predisposition to tumours such as cNFs, plexiform neurofibromas, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours and optic nerve tumours. There are no therapies currently approved for cNFs aside from elective surgery, and the molecular aetiology of cNF remains relatively uncharacterised. Furthermore, whereas the biallelic inactivation of NF1 in neoplastic Schwann cells is critical for cNF formation, it is still unclear which additional genetic, transcriptional, epigenetic, microenvironmental or endocrine changes are important. Significant inroads have been made into cNF understanding, including NF1 genotype–phenotype correlations in NF1 microdeletion patients, the identification of recurring somatic mutations, studies of cNF-invading mast cells and macrophages, and clinical trials of putative therapeutic targets such as mTOR, MEK and c-KIT. Despite these advances, several gaps remain in our knowledge of the associated pathogenesis, which is further hampered by a lack of translationally relevant animal models. Some of these questions may be addressed in part by the adoption of genomic analysis techniques. Understanding the aetiology of cNF at the genomic level may assist in the development of new therapies for cNF, and may also contribute to a greater understanding of NF1/RAS signalling in cancers beyond those associated with NF1. Here, we summarise the present understanding of cNF biology, including the pathogenesis, mutational landscape, contribution of the tumour microenvironment and endocrine signalling, and the historical and current state of clinical trials for cNF. We also highlight open access data resources and potential avenues for future research that leverage recently developed genomics-based methods in cancer research.

Neurofibromin (NF1) genetic variant structure-function analyses using a full-length mouse cDNA

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is caused by pathogenic variants or mutations in the NF1 gene that encodes neurofibromin. We describe here a new approach to determining the functional consequences of NF1 genetic variants. We established a heterologous cell culture expression system using a full-length mouse Nf1 cDNA (mNf1) and human cell lines. We demonstrate that the full-length murine cDNA produces a > 250 kDa neurofibromin protein that is capable of modulating Ras signaling. We created mutant cDNAs representing NF1 patient variants with different clinically relevant phenotypes, and assessed their ability to produce mature neurofibromin and restore Nf1 activity in NF1^-/- cells. These cDNAs represent variants in multiple protein domains and various types of clinically relevant predicted variants. This approach will help advance research on neurofibromin structure and function, determine pathogenicity for missense variants, and allow for the development of activity assays and variant-directed therapeutics.

Emerging genotype-phenotype relationships in patients with large NF1 deletions

The most frequent recurring mutations in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are large deletions encompassing the NF1 gene and its flanking regions (NF1 microdeletions). The majority of these deletions encompass 1.4-Mb and are associated with the loss of 14 protein-coding genes and four microRNA genes. Patients with germline type-1 NF1 microdeletions frequently exhibit dysmorphic facial features, overgrowth/tall-for-age stature, significant delay in cognitive development, large hands and feet, hyperflexibility of joints and muscular hypotonia. Such patients also display significantly more cardiovascular anomalies as compared with patients without large deletions and often exhibit increased numbers of subcutaneous, plexiform and spinal neurofibromas as compared with the general NF1 population. Further, an extremely high burden of internal neurofibromas, characterised by >3000 ml tumour volume, is encountered significantly, more frequently, in non-mosaic NF1 microdeletion patients than in NF1 patients lacking such deletions. NF1 microdeletion patients also have an increased risk of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs); their lifetime MPNST risk is 16–26%, rather higher than that of NF1 patients with intragenic NF1 mutations (8–13%). NF1 microdeletion patients, therefore, represent a high-risk group for the development of MPNSTs, tumours which are very aggressive and difficult to treat. Co-deletion of the SUZ12 gene in addition to NF1 further increases the MPNST risk in NF1 microdeletion patients. Here, we summarise current knowledge about genotype–phenotype relationships in NF1 microdeletion patients and discuss the potential role of the genes located within the NF1 microdeletion interval whose haploinsufficiency may contribute to the more severe clinical phenotype.

Non-coding RNA ANRIL and the number of plexiform neurofibromas in patients with NF1 microdeletions

Background

Neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1) is caused by mutations of the NF1 gene at 17q11.2. In 95% of non-founder NF1 patients, NF1 mutations are identifiable by means of a comprehensive mutation analysis. 5-10% of these patients harbour microdeletions encompassing the NF1 gene and its flanking regions. NF1 is characterised by tumours of the peripheral nerve sheaths, the pathognomonic neurofibromas. Considerable inter- and intra-familial variation in expressivity of the disease has been observed which is influenced by genetic modifiers unrelated to the constitutional NF1 mutation. The number of plexiform neurofibromas (PNF) in NF1 patients is a highly heritable genetic trait. Recently, SNP rs2151280 located within the non-coding RNA gene ANRIL at 9p21.3, was identified as being strongly associated with PNF number in a family-based association study. The T-allele of rs2151280, which correlates with reduced ANRIL expression, appears to be associated with higher PNF number. ANRIL directly binds to the SUZ12 protein, an essential component of polycomb repressive complex 2, and is required for SUZ12 occupancy of the CDKN2A/CDKN2B tumour suppressor genes as well as for their epigenetic silencing.

Methods

Here, we explored a potential association of PNF number and PNF volume with SNP rs2151280 in 29 patients with constitutional NF1 microdeletions using the exact Cochran-Armitage test for trends and the exact Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon test. Both the PNF number and total tumour volume in these 29 NF1 patients were assessed by whole-body MRI. The NF1 microdeletions observed in these 29 patients encompassed the NF1 gene as well as its flanking regions, including the SUZ12 gene.

Results

In the 29 microdeletion patients investigated, neither the PNF number nor PNF volume was found to be associated with the T-allele of rs2151280.

Conclusion

Our findings imply that, at least in patients with NF1 microdeletions, PNF susceptibility is not associated with rs2151280. Although somatic inactivation of the NF1 wild-type allele is considered to be the PNF-initiating event in NF1 patients with intragenic mutations and patients with NF1 microdeletions, both patient groups may differ with regard to tumour progression because of the heterozygous constitutional deletion of SUZ12 present only in patients with NF1 microdeletions.

Identification of recurrent type-2 NF1 microdeletions reveals a mitotic nonallelic homologous recombination hotspot underlying a human genomic disorder

Nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR) is one of the major mechanisms underlying copy number variation in the human genome. Although several disease-associated meiotic NAHR breakpoints have been analyzed in great detail, hotspots for mitotic NAHR are not well characterized. Type-2 NF1 microdeletions, which are predominantly of postzygotic origin, constitute a highly informative model with which to investigate the features of mitotic NAHR. Here, a custom-designed MLPA- and PCR-based approach was used to identify 23 novel NAHR-mediated type-2 NF1 deletions. Breakpoint analysis of these 23 type-2 deletions, together with 17 NAHR-mediated type-2 deletions identified previously, revealed that the breakpoints are nonuniformly distributed within the paralogous SUZ12 and SUZ12P sequences. Further, the analysis of this large group of type-2 deletions revealed breakpoint recurrence within short segments (ranging in size from 57 to 253-bp) as well as the existence of a novel NAHR hotspot of 1.9-kb (termed PRS4). This hotspot harbored 20% (8/40) of the type-2 deletion breakpoints and contains the 253-bp recurrent breakpoint region BR6 in which four independent type-2 deletion breakpoints were identified. Our findings indicate that a combination of an open chromatin conformation and short non-B DNA-forming repeats may predispose to recurrent mitotic NAHR events between SUZ12 and its pseudogene.

Dissecting the clinical phenotype associated with mosaic type-2 NF1 microdeletions

Patients with large deletions of the NF1 gene and its flanking regions (termed NF1 microdeletions) generally exhibit more severe clinical manifestations of neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1). Here, we have investigated the clinical phenotype displayed by eight patients harbouring mosaic type-2 NF1 microdeletions. These patients did not exhibit facial dysmorphism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, delayed cognitive development and/or learning disabilities, cognitive impairment, congenital heart disease, hyperflexibility of joints, large hands and feet, muscular hypotonia or bone cysts. All these features have previously been reported to be disproportionately associated with germline (i.e. non-mosaic) type-1 NF1 microdeletions as compared with the general NF1 population. Plexiform neurofibromas were also less prevalent in patients with mosaic type-2 NF1 microdeletions as compared with patients carrying constitutional (germline) type-1 NF1 microdeletions. Five of the eight patients with mosaic type-2 deletions investigated here had 20-250 cutaneous neurofibromas, but only one of them exhibited a high load of cutaneous neurofibromas (N > 1,000). By contrast, a previous study indicated a high burden of cutaneous neurofibromas (N > 1,000) in 50% of adult patients with germline type-1 NF1 deletions. Patients with germline type-1 NF1 microdeletions have been reported to have an increased lifetime risk of 16-26% for a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (MPNST). In this study, one of the eight investigated mosaic type-2 microdeletion patients developed an MPNST. We conclude that patients with mosaic type-2 NF1 microdeletions may also be at an increased risk of MPNSTs despite their generally milder disease manifestations as compared with germline type-1 NF1 microdeletions.

What have studies of genomic disorders taught us about our genome?

The elucidation of genomic disorders began with molecular technologies that enabled detection of genomic changes which were (a) smaller than those resolved by traditional cytogenetics (less than 5 Mb) and (b) larger than what could be determined by conventional gel electrophoresis. Methods such as pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) could resolve such changes but were limited to locus-specific studies. The study of genomic disorders has rapidly advanced with the development of array-based techniques. These enabled examination of the entire human genome at a higher level of resolution, thus allowing elucidation of the basis of many new disorders, mechanisms that result in genomic changes that can result in copy number variation (CNV), and most importantly, a deeper understanding of the characteristics, features, and plasticity of our genome. In this chapter, we focus on the structural and architectural features of the genome, which can potentially result in genomic instability, delineate how mechanisms, such as NAHR, NHEJ, and FoSTeS/MMBIR lead to disease-causing rearrangements, and briefly describe the relationship between the leading methods presently used in studying genomic disorders. We end with a discussion on our new understanding about our genome including: the contribution of new mutation CNV to disease, the abundance of mosaicism, the extent of subtelomeric rearrangements, the frequency of de novo rearrangements associated with sporadic birth defects, the occurrence of balanced and unbalanced translocations, the increasing discovery of insertional translocations, the exploration of complex rearrangements and exonic CNVs. In the postgenomic era, our understanding of the genome has advanced very rapidly as the level of technical resolution has become higher. This leads to a greater understanding of the effects of rearrangements present both in healthy subjects and individuals with clinically relevant phenotypes.

Internal tumor burden in neurofibromatosis Type I patients with large NF1 deletions

Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is a frequent tumor suppressor gene disorder characterized by multiple benign tumors and high risk of malignancy. Internal tumor burden is a major disease-associated manifestation and can be most adequately assessed by magnetic resonance imaging of the whole body. Approximately 5% of NF1 patients have constitutional large NF1-deletions that are generally associated with more severe clinical manifestations. Here, we investigated whether these deletion patients also have more and/or larger internal tumors by assessing internal tumors and their total volume (exclusive of cutaneous and subcutaneous) in 38 NF1 deletion patients (including eight mosaic cases) and 114 age- and gender-matched NF1 patients without deletions. The incidence of internal tumors was significantly lower in mosaic deletion patients (1/8 = 13%) but did not differ between the 30 nonmosaic deletion patients and the 90 age- and gender-matched NF1 patients without large deletions used as controls. Neither the number nor the total volume of tumors per patient differed significantly between the latter two groups. However, extremely high tumor burden (>3,000 ml) was significantly more frequent among nonmosaic NF1 deletion patients than among NF1 patients without large deletions (13% vs. 1%, P = 0.014). Thus, as a group, patients with NF1 deletions do not exhibit a significantly higher internal tumor burden than NF1 patients without such deletions. However, deletion patients can frequently have extremely large internal tumors and thus demand special attention.

Tissue-specific differences in the proportion of mosaic large NF1 deletions are suggestive of a selective growth advantage of hematopoietic del(+/-) stem cells

Type-2 NF1 deletions spanning 1.2 Mb are frequently of postzygotic origin and hence tend to be associated with mosaicism for normal cells and those harboring the deletion (del(+/-) cells). Eleven patients with mosaic type-2 deletions were investigated by FISH and high proportions (94-99%) of del(+/-) cells were detected both in whole blood and in isolated CD3+, CD14+, CD15+, and CD19+ leukocytes. Significantly lower proportions of del(+/-) cells (24-82%) were however noted in urine-derived epithelial cells. A patient harboring an atypical large NF1 deletion with nonrecurrent breakpoints was also found to have a much higher proportion of del(+/-) cells in blood (96%) than in urine (51%). The tissue-specific differences in the proportions of del(+/-) cells as well as the X chromosome inactivation (XCI) patterns observed in these mosaic patients suggest that the majority of the deletions had occurred before or during the preimplantation blastocyst stage before the onset of XCI. We postulate that hematopoietic del(+/-) stem cells present at an early developmental stage are characterized by a selective growth advantage over normal cells lacking the deletion, leading to a high proportion of del(+/-) cells in peripheral blood from the affected patients.

On the sequence-directed nature of human gene mutation: the role of genomic architecture and the local DNA sequence environment in mediating gene mutations underlying human inherited disease

Different types of human gene mutation may vary in size, from structural variants (SVs) to single base-pair substitutions, but what they all have in common is that their nature, size and location are often determined either by specific characteristics of the local DNA sequence environment or by higher order features of the genomic architecture. The human genome is now recognized to contain "pervasive architectural flaws" in that certain DNA sequences are inherently mutation prone by virtue of their base composition, sequence repetitivity and/or epigenetic modification. Here, we explore how the nature, location and frequency of different types of mutation causing inherited disease are shaped in large part, and often in remarkably predictable ways, by the local DNA sequence environment. The mutability of a given gene or genomic region may also be influenced indirectly by a variety of noncanonical (non-B) secondary structures whose formation is facilitated by the underlying DNA sequence. Since these non-B DNA structures can interfere with subsequent DNA replication and repair and may serve to increase mutation frequencies in generalized fashion (i.e., both in the context of subtle mutations and SVs), they have the potential to serve as a unifying concept in studies of mutational mechanisms underlying human inherited disease.

Mosaic type-1 NF1 microdeletions as a cause of both generalized and segmental neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1)

Mosaicism is an important feature of type-1 neurofibromatosis (NF1) on account of its impact upon both clinical manifestations and transmission risk. Using FISH and MLPA to screen 3500 NF1 patients, we identified 146 individuals harboring gross NF1 deletions, 14 of whom (9.6%) displayed somatic mosaicism. The high rate of mosaicism in patients with NF1 deletions supports the postulated idea of a direct relationship between the high new mutation rate in this cancer predisposition syndrome and the frequency of mosaicism. Seven of the 14 mosaic NF1 deletions were type-2, whereas four were putatively type-1, and three were atypical. Two of the four probable type-1 deletions were confirmed as such by breakpoint-spanning PCR or SNP analysis. Both deletions were associated with a generalized manifestation of NF1. Independently, we identified a third patient with a mosaic type-1 NF1 deletion who exhibited segmental NF1. Together, these three cases constitute the first proven mosaic type-1 deletions so far reported. In two of these three mosaic type-1 deletions, the breakpoints were located within PRS1 and PRS2, previously identified as hotspots for nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR) during meiosis. Hence, NAHR within PRS1 and PRS2 is not confined to meiosis but may also occur during postzygotic mitotic cell cycles.

Copy number variations in the NF1 gene region are infrequent and do not predispose to recurrent type-1 deletions

Gross deletions of the NF1 gene at 17q11.2 belong to the group of 'genomic disorders' characterized by local sequence architecture that predisposes to genomic rearrangements. Segmental duplications within regions associated with genomic disorders are prone to non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR), which mediates gross rearrangements. Copy number variants (CNVs) without obvious phenotypic consequences also occur frequently in regions of genomic disorders. In the NF1 gene region, putative CNVs have been reportedly detected by array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH). These variants include duplications and deletions within the NF1 gene itself (CNV1) and a duplication that encompasses the SUZ12 gene, the distal NF1-REPc repeat and the RHOT1 gene (CNV2). To explore the possibility that these CNVs could have played a role in promoting deletion mutagenesis in type-1 deletions (the most common type of gross NF1 deletion), non-affected transmitting parents of patients with type-1 NF1 deletions were investigated by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). However, neither CNV1 nor CNV2 were detected. This would appear to exclude these variants as frequent mediators of NAHR giving rise to type-1 deletions. Using MLPA, we were also unable to confirm CNV1 in healthy controls as previously reported. We conclude that locus-specific techniques should be used to independently confirm putative CNVs, originally detected by array CGH, to avoid false-positive results. In one patient with an atypical deletion, a duplication in the region of CNV2 was noted. This duplication could have occurred concomitantly with the deletion as part of a complex rearrangement or may alternatively have preceded the deletion.