Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) and Silver-Russell syndrome (SRS) are two imprinting disorders associated with opposite molecular alterations in the 11p15.5 imprinting centres. Their clinical diagnosis is confirmed by molecular testing in 50–70% of patients. The authors from different reference centres for BWS and SRS have identified single patients with unexpected and even contradictory molecular findings in respect to the clinical diagnosis. These patients clinically do not fit the characteristic phenotypes of SRS or BWS, but illustrate their clinical heterogeneity. Thus, comprehensive molecular testing is essential for accurate diagnosis and appropriate management, to avoid premature clinical diagnosis and anxiety for the families.

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.

We present a new case of 11p15 duplication (trisomy 11p15) in a boy [46,XY,-21,+der(21), t(11;21)(p15.2;q22.3)] suffering from Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), whose phenotypically normal father carries a balanced translocation between chromosomes 11 and 21[46,XY, t(11;21)(p15.2;q22.3)]. The paternal grandmother has the same balanced translocation and is also clinically normal. BWS was suspected when the boy was 6 months old because of gigantism, macroglossia, visceromegaly, ear lobe creases and abdominal distention. Apart from the characteristic BWS phenotype, the boy has other features which are almost exclusively observed in 11p trisomy (high forehead with frontal upsweep of hair, wide central nose bridge, slightly beaked nose, chubby cheeks and severe mental retardation). So far, at least eight cases of 11p15 duplication have been described as patients with BWS. In six of these, the duplication was due to inheritance of a translocated or rearranged paternal chromosome. This was also the case in our patient. In the two other previously published cases, the 11p15 duplications were de novo, but in one of these, DNA analysis has subsequently shown that the duplication was of paternal origin. We discuss our observations in relation to the above-mentioned previous cases of 11p15 duplication and the possible role of genomic imprinting in the etiology of BWS.