Trisomy 22pter-q12.3 presenting with hepatic dysfunction variability of cat-eye syndrome

Genetics in biliary atresia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biliary atresia is a poorly understood deadly disease. Genetic predisposition factors are suspected albeit not firmly established. This review summarizes recent evidence of genetic alterations in biliary atresia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whole-genome association studies in biliary atresia patients identified four distinct predisposition loci with four different genes potentially involved in the disease occurrence. Variations in these genes were searched for, but none were found in patients with biliary atresia suggesting complex mechanisms.

SUMMARY

Despite decades since its description and decades of intensive researches, cause of biliary atresia disease remains enigmatic. The inheritance of biliary atresia is not Mendelian. Genetic predisposition factor is one of the explored fields to explain biliary atresia pathogenicity. Biliary atresia has been associated with several inborn syndromes, chromosome anomalies, and gene polymorphisms in specific populations. Four predisposition loci encompassing genes relevant to the disease have been identified, but no pathogenic variations were found in biliary atresia patients. Few reported cases of isolated biliary atresia manifestation in the context of known genetic diseases suggest coincidental findings. Alternatives to classic genetic alterations are proposed to explain genetic predisposition in biliary atresia including noncoding and epigenetic factors. Biliary atresia is most likely related to complex traits making its genetic exploration challenging.

A de novo sSMC(22) Characterized by High-Resolution Arrays in a Girl with Cat-Eye Syndrome without Coloboma

Cat-eye syndrome (CES) results from trisomy or tetrasomy of proximal 22q originated by a small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC). Two critical regions for the major clinical features of CES (CESCRs) have been suggested; however, CES clinical presentation often does not correlate with the sSMC genetic content. We report here a CES girl without coloboma and carrier of a de novo type I sSMC(22) as determined by G- and C-banding, NOR staining and microarrays. This sSMC included 6 distal genes outside the original CESCR and led to a tetrasomy for 22q11.1-22q11.21. The patient's final karyotype was 47,XX,+psu dic(22)(q11.21).arr 22q11.1q11.21(15,250,000-17,035,860)×4 dn. The amplified region outside of CESCR included some genes that may be related to neurologic, heart and renal abnormalities. Conversely, even though the amplification included the CECR2 gene, a major candidate for eye features, there was no coloboma in the patient. The genetic delineation of the present sSMC further strengthens that the CES clinical presentation does not fit completely with the duplicated genetic content and that CES is actually a genomic disorder. Furthermore, since we observed no mosaicism, we believe that other mechanisms might be behind the variability of CES phenotypes as well, mainly those related with functional interactions among amplified genes.