Phenotypic characterization of derivative 22 syndrome: case series and review

Supernumerary derivative 22 chromosome resulting from novel constitutional non-Robertsonian translocation: t(20;22)-Case Report

Background

Maternal non-Robertsonian translocation-t(20;22)(q13;q11.2) between chromosomes 20 and 22resulting in an additional complex small supernumerary marker chromosome as derivative (22)inherited to the proband is not been reported yet.

Case presentation

A 4 years old boy with a history of developmental delay, low set ears, and facial dysmorphism was presented to the genetic clinic. Periauricular pit, downward slanting eyes, medially flared eyebrows, downturned mouth corners, and micrognathia were observed. He had congenital heart defect with atrial septal defect (ASD), ventricular septal defect (VSD), and central nervous system (CNS) anomalies with the gross cranium. Karyotype analysis, Fluorescent in-situ hybridization analysis (FISH), and Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) were used to determine the chromosomal origin and segmental composition of the derivative 22 chromosome. Karyotype and FISH analyses were performed to confirm the presence of a supernumerary chromosome, and Microarray analysis was performed to rule out copy number variations in the proband's 22q11.2q12 band point. The probands' karyotype revealed the inherited der(22)t(20;22)(q13;q11.2)dmat. Parental karyotype confirmed the mother as the carrier, with balanced non-Robertsonian translocation-46,XX,t(20;22)(q13;q11.2).

Conclusion

The mother had a non-Robertsonian translocation t(20;22)(q13;q11.2) between chromosomes 20 and 22, which resulted in Emanuel syndrome in the proband. The most plausible explanation is 3:1 meiotic malsegregation, which results in the child inheriting derivative chromosome. The parental karyotype study aided in identifying the carrier of the supernumerary der(22), allowing future pregnancies with abnormal offspring to be avoided.

Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetuses with Emanuel Syndrome: Results of Ultrasound Examination and Invasive Genetic Testing

OBJECTIVE

To investigate prenatal manifestations of Emanuel syndrome (ES) by retrospectively analyzing the results of prenatal diagnosis.

METHODS

Thirteen fetuses were collected from 5 hospitals, of which six were confirmed with 47,der(22)t(11;22) (ES) by karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Seven were diagnosed with 46,t(11;22) balanced translocations by karyotype, including one de novo mosaic 46,XX,t(11;22). In 3/7, CMA was performed but did not identify chromosomal imbalances. The results of prenatal diagnoses were reviewed, including ultrasound examinations and genetic testing.

RESULTS

In ES fetuses, the derivative 22 was consistently inherited from the mother, while in the balanced translocation group, the t(11;22) chromosome was of paternal origin in 3/6 cases, All ES fetuses presented with multiple abnormalities by ultrasound examinations. Diaphragm hernia (3/6), Dandy-Walker complex (3/6), and kidney aplasia (3/6), were the most common ultrasound findings. Sonographic soft markers such as increased nuchal translucency, increased nuchal fold thickness appeared in 3 cases and all of these were associated with other anomalies. However, none of the ultrasound findings differentiated ES from other genetic syndromes during fetal period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, in fetuses with a der(22), the derivative chromosome was consistently of maternal origin. In contrast, 46,t(11;22) balanced translocations were of maternal or paternal origin. The results contribute to the literature regarding the fetal phenotype of ES. Due to the absence of specific features distinguishing ES from other genetic syndromes, confirming the diagnosis through invasive genetic testing is necessary. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Non-invasive prenatal screening for Emanuel syndrome

Objective

The aim of this study was to validate the results of two Emanuel syndromes detected by non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) screening using invasive methods, providing clinical performance of NIPS on chromosome microduplication detection.

Methods

NIPS was performed to diagnose the Emanuel syndrome. Amniocentesis or cordocentesis was performed to confirm the positive screening result of Emanuel syndrome cases. Fetal sample was detected by karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP Array). Parental karyotyping and FISH were also carried out.

Results

Two cases with chromosomal abnormalities of 11q23.3q25 and 22q11.1q11.21 were found by NIPS. Chromosomal karyotyping showed that the two fetuses each have a small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC), SNP Array further demonstrated double duplications approximately 18 Mb in 11q23.3q25 and 3 Mb in 22q11.1q11.21. FISH confirmed that the small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC) was ish der(22)t(11;22) (TUPLE1+, ARSA-). Ultrasound scan and MRI showed some structure malformations in two fetuses. The two mothers were found to be a balanced carrier: 46,XX, t(11;22)(q23.3;q11.2).

Conclusion

NIPS could effectively identify Emanuel syndrome, which may indicate risks of a parent being a balanced rearrangement carrier. The followed confirmation test for positive sample is necessary and ensures the accuracy of the diagnosis.