Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:54:31.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why is There No Diploid Overdose Effect in Prader-Willi Syndrome Due to Uniparental Disomy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

A. Smith
A. Smith*
Affiliation:
Cytogenetics Unit, Children's Hospital, Camperdown, Australia
*
Cytogenetics Unit, Children's Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales 2050, Australia

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Due to DNA technology, it is now apparent that the mechanisms of genetic disease are more complex than the model of a gene with biallelic expression in the diploid state. If a gene is imprinted, monoallelic expression is the norm when the chromosomes of a pair are inherited normally from each parent. Uniparental disomy (UPD) is the abnormal situation where both chromosomes of a pair come from the same parent. When the chromosome contains an imprinted gene, UPD may result in nullisomy or disomy for a functional copy of that gene. If there are two imprinted loci on the same chromosome, UPD for that chromosome results in nullisomy for one imprinted gene but functional disomy for the other a “diploid overdose” (DO). This situation has been well demonstrated in the Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) which is the nullisomic phenotype for the PWS gene(s) on chromosome 15q 11-13. Chromosome 15q11-13 also contains the gene for Angelman syndrome (AS) which has a phenotype distinct from PWS. Both loci are subject to imprinting – in PWS, the imprint is on the maternal chromosome 15, in AS it is on the paternal chromosome 15. All individuals with PWS due to maternal UPD, while functionally nullisomic for the PWS locus, are functionally disomic for the AS locus – a DO situation. Assuming that biallelic expression of an imprinted gene is harmful, one would expect DO for an imprinted gene to produce a phenotypic effect. Cases of PWS due to UPD do not appear to differ from those due to deletion (hypopigmentation in deletional cases can be explained by loss of D15S12 downstream from the critical region). There is no good evidence of DO for the AS locus in PWS due to UPD. Why then was it ‘necessary’ in evolutionary terms to imprint the AS locus and maintain the imprint faithfully for life. A similar situation of two imprinted genes on the same chromosome occurs with IGF2 and H19 on chromosome 11p15. Maternal imprinting for IGF2 and paternal imprinting for H19 is the norm. Paternal UPD in this situation does lead to a DO effect, namely Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. The possibility of a DO effect needs to be considered when assessing the phenotypic spectrum of UPD for other chromosomes currently under investigation.

Keywords

ImprintingChromosome 15Angelman syndromeBeckwith-Wiedemann syndromeH19
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 1-2 , April 1996 , pp. 179 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. Rieger, R, Michaelis, A, Green, MM: Gene expression; in Rieger, R, Michaelis, A, Green, MM (eds): Glossary of Genetics: Classical and Molecular, ed 5. Berlin, Springer, 1991 pp 194–195.Google Scholar
2. Wilkie, AOM: The molecular basis of genetic dominance. J Med Genet 1994; 31: 89–98.Google Scholar
3. Fisher, E, Scambler, P: Human haploinsufficiency – one for sorrow, two for joy. Nat Genet 1994; 7: 5–7.Google Scholar
4. Reik, W: Genomic imprinting and genetic disorders in man. Trends Genet 1989; 5: 331–336.Google Scholar
5. Hall, JG: Genomic imprinting: Review and relevance to human diseases. Am J Hum Genet 1990; 46: 857–873.Google Scholar
6. Zhang, Y, Shields, T, Crenshaw, T, Hao, Y, Moulton, T, Tycko, B: Imprinting of human H19: Allele-specific CpG methylation, loss of the active allele in Wilms tumor, and potential for somatic allele switching. Am J Hum Genet 1993; 53: 113–124.Google Scholar
7. Nicholls, RD: New insights reveal complex mechansisms involved in genomic imprinting. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 54: 733–740.Google Scholar
8. Cattanach, BM, Beechey, CV: Autosomal and X-chromosome imprinting. Dev Suppl 1990; 63–72.Google Scholar
9. Bartolomei, MS: The search for imprinted genes. Nat Genet 1994; 6: 220–222.Google Scholar
10. Henry, I, Bonaiti-Pellie, C, Chehensse, V, Beldjord, C, Schwartz, C, Utermann, G, Junien, C: Uniparental paternal disomy in a genetic cancer-predisposing syndrome. Nature 1991; 351: 665–667.Google Scholar
11. Engel, E: Uniparental disomy revisited: the first 12 years. Am J Med Genet 1993; 46: 670–674.Google Scholar
12. Wilson, GN, Hall, JG, de la Cruz, F: Genomic imprinting: Summary of an NICHD conference. Am J Med Genet 1993; 46: 675–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Lyon, MF: Epigenetic inheritance in mammals. Trends Genet 1993; 9: 123–128.Google Scholar
14. Reis, A, Dittrich, B, Greger, V, Buiting, K, Lalande, M, Gillisen-Kaesbach, G, Anvret, M, Horsthemke, B: Imprinting mutations suggested by abnormal DNA methylation patterns in familial Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 54: 741–747.Google Scholar
15. Razin, A, Cedar, H: DNA methylation and genomic imprinting. Cell 1994; 77: 473476.Google Scholar
16. Barlow, DP: Imprinting: A gamete's point of view. Trends Genet 1994; 10: 194–196.Google Scholar
17. Holliday, R: A different kind of inheritance. Sci Am 1989; 40–48.Google Scholar
18. Monk, M, Grant, M: Preferential X-chromosome inactivation, DNA methylation and imprinting. Dev Suppl 1990; 55–62.Google Scholar
19. Kitsberg, D, Selig, S, Brandeis, M, Siman, I, Keshet, I, Driscoll, DJ, Nicholls, RD, Cedar, H: Allele-specific replication timing of imprinted gene regions. Nature 1993; 364: 459–463.Google Scholar
20. Ferguson-Smith, AC, Sasaki, H, Cattanach, BM, Surani, MA: Parental-origin-specific epigenetic modification of the mouse H 19 gene. Nature 1993; 362: 751–755.Google Scholar
21. Engel, E: A new genetic concept: UPD and its potential effect, isodisomy. Am J Med Genet 1980; 6: 137–143.Google Scholar
22. Nicholls, RD, Knoll, JHM, Butler, MG, Karam, S, Lalande, M: Genetic imprinting suggested by maternal heterodisomy in non-deletion Prader-Willi syndrome. Nature 1989; 342: 281–285.Google Scholar
23. Knoll, JH, Glatt, KA, Nicholls, RD, Malcolm, S, Lalande, M: Chromosome 15 uniparental disomy is not frequent in Angelman syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 1991; 48: 16–21.Google Scholar
24. Kalousek, DK, Langlois, S, Barrett, I, Yam, I, Wilson, DR, Howard-Peebles, PN, Johnson, MP, Giorgiutti, E: Uniparental disomy for chromosome 16 in humans. Am J Hum Genet 1993; 52: 8–16.Google Scholar
25. Spence, JE, Perciaccante, RG, Grieg, GM, Willard, HF, Ledbetter, DH, Hetjmancik, JF, Pollack, MS, O'Brien, WEO, Beaudet, AL: Uniparental disomy as a mechanism for human genetic disease. Am J Hum Genet 1988: 42: 217–226.Google Scholar
26. Eggerding, FA, Schonberg, SA, Chehab, FF, Norton, ME, Cox, VA, Epstein, CJ: Uniparental isodisomy for paternal 7p and maternal 7q in a child with growth retardation. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 55: 253–265.Google Scholar
27. Healey, S, Powell, F, Battersby, M, Chevenix-Trench, G, McGill, J: A distinctive phenotype for maternal uniparental disomy for chromosome 14. Am J Med Genet 1994; 51: 147–149.Google Scholar
28. Donnai, D: Robertsonian translocations: clues to imprinting. Am J Med Genet 1993; 46: 681–682.Google Scholar
29. Purvis-Smith, SG, Saville, T, Manass, S, Yip, MY, Lam-Po-Tang, PR, Duffy, B, Johnston, H, Leigh, D, MacDonald, B: Uniparental disomy 15 resulting from correction of an initial trisomy 15. Am J Hum Genet 1992; 50: 1348–1350.Google Scholar
30. Cassidy, SB, Lai, LW, Erikson, RP, Magnuson, L, Thomas, E, Gendron, R, Herrmann, J: Trisomy 15 with loss of the paternal 15 as a cause of Prader-Willi syndrome due to maternal disomy. Am J Hum Genet 1992; 51: 701–708.Google ScholarPubMed
31. Schreck, RR, Breg, WR, Erlanger, BP, Miller, OJ: Preferential derivation of abnormal human G-group-like chromosomes from chromosome 15. Hum Genet 1977; 36: 1–12.Google Scholar
32. Hsu, LYF, Paciuc, S, David, K, Cristian, S, Moloshok, R, Hirschhorn, K: Number of C bands of human isochromosome Xqi and relation to 45,X. J Med Genet 1978; 15: 222–226.Google Scholar
33. Schinzel, A: Karyotype-phenotype correlations in autosomal chromosomal aberrations. Prog Clin Biol Res 1993; 384: 19–31.Google Scholar
34. Surani, MA, Kothary, R, Allen, ND, Sing, BP, Fundele, R, Ferguson-Smith, AC, Barton, SC: Genome imprinting and development in the mouse. Dev Suppl 1990; 89–98.Google Scholar
35. Dryja, TP, Mukai, S, Petersen, R, Rapaport, JM, Walton, D, Yandell, DW: Parental origin of mutations of the retinoblastoma gene. Nature 1989; 339: 556–558.Google Scholar
36. Haas, OA, Argyriou-Tirita, A, Lion, T: Parental origin of chromosomes involved in the translocation t(9; 22). Nature 1992; 359: 414–416.Google Scholar
37. Cattanach, BM, Kirk, M: Differential activity of maternally and paternally derived chromosome regions in mice. Nature 1985; 315: 496–498.Google Scholar
38. Clayton-Smith, J, Webb, T, Cheng, XJ, Pembrey, ME, Malcolm, S: Duplication of chromosome 15 in the region 15q 11-13 in a patient with developmental delay and ataxia with similarities to Angelman syndrome. J Med Genet 1993; 30: 529–531.Google Scholar
39. Holm, VA, Cassidy, SB, Butler, MG, Hanchett, JM, Greenswag, LR, Whitman, BY, Greenberg, F: Prader-Willi syndrome: Consensus diagnostic criteria. Pediatrics 1993; 91: 398–402.Google Scholar
40. Donaldson, MDC, Chu, CE, Cooke, A, Wilson, A, Greene, SA, Stephenson, JBP: The Prader-Willi syndrome. Arch Dis Child 1994; 70: 58–63.Google Scholar
41. Bottani, A, Robinson, WP, DeLozier-Blanchet, CD, Engel, E, Morris, MA, Schmitt, B, Thun-Hohenstein, L, Schinzel, A: Angelman syndrome due to paternal disomy of chromosome 15: a milder phenotype? Am J Med Genet 1994; 51: 35–40.Google Scholar
42. Woodage, T, Prasad, M, Dixon, JW, Selby, RE, Romain, DR, Columbano-Green, LM, Graham, D, Rogan, PK, Seip, JR, Smith, A, Trent, RJ: Bloom syndrome and maternal uniparental disomy for chromosome 15. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 55: 74–80.Google Scholar
43. Butler, MG: Hypopigmentation: a common feature of Prader-Labhart-Willi syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 1989; 45: 140–146.Google Scholar
44. Lee, ST, Nicholls, RD, Bundey, S, Laxova, R, Musarella, M, Spritz, RA: Mutations of the P gene in oculocutaneous albinism, ocular albinism, and Prader-Willi syndrome plus albinism. New Engl J Med 1994; 330: 529–534.Google Scholar
45. Knoll, JH, Nicholls, RD, Magenis, RE, Glatt, K, Graham, JM Jr, Kaplan, L, Lalande, M: Angelman syndrome: Three molecular classes identified with chromosome 15q11q13 specific DNA markers. Am J Hum Genet 1990; 47: 149–155.Google Scholar
46. Robinson, WP, Bottani, A, Yagang, X, Balakrishman, J, Binkert, F, Machler, M, Prader, A, Schinzel, A: Molecular, cytogenetic, and clinical investigations of Prader-Willi syndrome patients. Am J Hum Genet 1991; 49: 1219–1234.Google Scholar
47. Hamabe, J, Fukushima, Y, Harada, N, Abe, K, Matsuo, N, Nagai, T, Yoshioka, A, Tsukino, R, Niikawa, N: Molecular study of the Prader-Willi syndrome: Deletion, RFLP, and phenotypic analyses of 50 patients. Am J Med Genet 1991; 41: 54–63.Google Scholar
48. Mascari, MJ, Gottlieb, W, Rogan, PK, Butler, MG, Waller, DA, Armour, JAL, Jeffreys, AJ, Ladda, RL, Nicholls, RD: The frequency of UPD in Prader-Willi syndrome. New Engl J Med 1992; 326: 1599–1607.Google Scholar
49. Woodage, T, Deng, ZM, Prasad, M, Smart, R, Lindeman, R, Christian, SL, Ledbetter, DH, Robson, L, Smith, A, Trent, RJ: A variety of genetic mechanisms are associated with the Prader-Willi syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1994; 54: 219–226.Google Scholar
50. Lai, LW, Erikson, RP, Cassidy, SB: Clinical correlates of chromosome 15 deletions and maternal disomy in Prader-Willi syndrome. Am J Dis Child 1993; 147: 1217–1223.Google Scholar
51. Butler, MG, Meaney, FJ, Palmer, CG: Clinical and cytogenetic survey of 39 individuals with Prader-Labhart-Willi syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1986; 23: 793–809.Google Scholar
52. Butler, MG, Meaney, FJ: An anthropometric study of 38 individuals with Prader-Labhart-Willi syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1987; 26: 445–455.Google Scholar
53. Graham, DA, Abbott, GD, Suzuki, Y, Suzuki, H, Shimoda, S: Neuroendocrine protein 7B2 in Prader-Willi syndrome. Aust NZ J Med 1992; 22: 455–457.Google Scholar
54. Wenger, SL, Hanchett, JM, Steele, MW, Maier, BV, Golden, WL: Clinical comparison of 59 Prader-Willi patients with and without the 15(q12) deletion. Am J Med Genet 1987; 28; 881–887.Google Scholar
55. Delach, JA, Rosengren, SS, Kaplan, L, Greenstein, RM, Cassidy, SB, Benn, PA: Comparison of high resolution chromosome banding and fluoresence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the laboratory evaluation of Prader-Willi syndrome and Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1994; 52: 85–91.Google Scholar
56. Leonard, CM, Williams, CA, Nicholls, RD, Agee, OF, Voeller, KKS, Honeyman, JC, Staab, EV: Angelman and Prader-Willi syndrome: A magnetic resonance imaging study of differences in cerebral structure. Am J Med Genet 1993; 46: 26–33.Google Scholar
57. DiMario, FJ, Dunham, B, Burleson, JA, Moskovitz, J, Cassidy, SB: An evaluation of autonomic nervous system function in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 76–81.Google Scholar
58. Clarke, DJ: Prader-Willi syndrome and psychoses. Br J Psychiatry 1993; 163: 680–684.Google Scholar
59. Burd, L, Kerbeshian, J: Hyperlexia in Prader-Willi syndrome. Lancet 1989; ii: 983–984.Google Scholar
60. Espie, CA, Tweedie, FM: Sleep patterns and sleep problems amongst people with mental handicap. J Ment Defic Res 1991; 35: 25–36.Google Scholar
61. Laurance, BM, Brito, A, Wilkinson, J: Prader-Willi syndrome after age 15 years. Arch Dis Child 1981; 56: 181–186.Google Scholar
62. Selikowitz, M, Sunman, J, Pendergast, A, Wright, S.: Fenfluramine in Prader-Willi syndrome: A double blind, placebo controlled trial. Arch Dis Child 1990; 65: 112–114.Google Scholar
63. Kirkilionis, AJ, Chudley, AE, Gregory, CA, Hamerton, JL: Molecular and clinical overlap of Angelman and Prader-Willi syndrome phenotypes. Am J Med Genet 1991; 40: 454–459.Google Scholar
64. Dittrich, B, Robinson, WP, Knoblauch, H, Buiting, K, Schmidt, K, Gillesen-Kaesbach, G, Horsthemke, B: Molecular diagnosis of the Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes by detection of parent-of-origin specific DNA methylation in 15q11-13. Hum Genet 1992; 90: 313–315.Google Scholar
65. Lerer, I, Meiner, V, Pashut-Lavon, I, Abeliovich, D: Molecular diagnosis of Prader-Willi syndrome: Parent-of-origin dependent methylation sites and non isotopie detection of (CA)n, dinucleotide repeat polymorphisms. Am J Med Genet 1994; 52: 79–84.Google Scholar
66. Sutcliffe, JS, Nakao, M, Christian, S, Orstavik, KH, Tommerup, N, Ledbetter, DH, Beaudet, AL: Deletions of a differentially methylated CpG island at the SNRPN gene define a putative imprinting control region. Nat Genet 1994; 8: 52–58.Google Scholar
67. Glenn, CG, Porter, KA, Jong, MTC, Nicholls, RD, Driscoll, DJ: Functional imprinting and epigenetic modification of the human SNRPN gene. Hum Mol Genet 1993; 2: 2001–2005.Google Scholar
68. Glenn, CG, Nicholls, RD, Robinson, WP, Saitoh, S, Niikawa, N, Schinzel, A, Horsthemke, B, Driscoll, DJ: Modification of 15q11-q13 DNA methylation imprints in unique Angelman and Prader-Willi patients. Hum Mol Genet 1993; 2: 1377–1382.Google Scholar
69. Cattanach, BM, Barr, JA, Evans, BP, Burenshaw, M, Beechey, CV, Leff, SE, Brannan, CI, Copeland, NG, Jenkins, NA, Jones, J: A candidate mouse model for Prader-Willi syndrome which shows an absence of SNRPN expression. Nat Genet 1992; 2: 270–274.Google Scholar
70. Romain, DR, Gebbie, OB, Parfitt, RG, Columbano-Green, LM, Smythe, RH, Chapman, CJ, Kerr, A: Two cases of ring chromosome 11. J Med Genet 1983; 20: 380–382.Google Scholar
71. Schinzel, AA, Basaran, S, Bernasconi, F, Karaman, B, Yuksel-Apak, M, Robinson, WP: Maternal uniparental disomy 22 has no impact on the phenotype. Am J Hum Genet 1994; 54: 21–24.Google Scholar
72. Slater, H, Shaw, JH, Dawson, G, Bankier, A, Forrest, SM: Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 13 in a phenotypically normal child. J Med Genet 1994; 31: 644–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar