SKY™ assessment of two karyotypes with 0–6 supernumerary marker/ring chromosomes and review of previously reported cases with two or more markers
Authors: Reddy Kavita S. , Wang Shirong , Groh Shannon , Gonatos John 
Published: March 2003

AbstractA 7‐month‐old boy with developmental delay and congenital abnormalities and a 58‐year‐old man with mental retardation, impaired speech, and dysmorphic features were referred for cytogenetic studies. The peripheral blood chromosome studies of Patient 1 had a de novo mosaic karyotype with 2–6 supernumerary marker chromosomes. Patient 2 had a mosaic karyotype with 1–5 supernumerary marker chromosomes and normal cells. All markers appeared to have a centromere by C‐banding and also by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using all centromere probe for Patient 1. The majority of the markers appeared like rings. Except for one marker in Patient 1 and 2–3 markers in Patient 2 with discernible >5 Mb euchromatin, the rest of the markers were minute and some appeared to have barely discernible euchromatin in C‐banding or FISH. Spectral karyotyping (SKY) was attempted to determine the origin of the marker chromosomes. Because some markers had barely any euchromatin, their classification was not clear cut and they were identified as derived from more than one chromosome. The SKY classification of the markers in Patient 1 was 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 22 and in Patient 2 was 1, 5, 6, or 7. Patient 2 was lost to further follow‐up studies. To confirm the recurring SKY classifications in Patient 1, centromere probes for chromosomes 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 22 were used. The markers were negative for 1, 3, and 11 but positive for 7, 15, and 22 and probably 5. Since 5 centromere probe cross hybridizes with 1 and 19, the weak signal on the marker/s in successive hybridization did not give a definitive answer. Also, the 5 paint probe was not conclusive because of the minute size of the marker. In some metaphases, two markers were derived from 5 or 22. For clinical considerations, the marker derived from 7, although variable in size, appeared to consistently have euchromatin, followed by 15, while 22 and 5 markers were mostly centromeric heterochromatin. The elastin gene probe that maps to 7q11.23, SNRPN gene that maps to 15q11.2, and TUPLE gene that maps to 22q11.2 did not give a signal on the markers. As expected for a majority of ring chromosomes, the pan telomere probe did not hybridize to any of the markers. This highly unusual karyotype was confirmed in the buccal epithelium using a mix of centromere 7 and 15 probes and the combination 14/22 probe. The ratio of additional FISH signals in the buccal mucosal cells was comparable to the ratios observed in the peripheral blood. In this study, we have attempted to consolidate the data on ≥2 marker cases to understand the analysis constraints, the range of clinical abnormalities, and the mechanisms involved. The literature was surveyed for multiple markers cases. A majority of the reported cases had two markers, either derived from the same chromosome or from two different chromosomes or two cell lines with different markers derived from the same chromosome. Cases with three or more markers were rare. The nature and extent of euchromatin content of the multiple markers appears to determine the phenotype. Frequently, multiple marker cases had small to minute markers. The clinical presentation varied from mild to severe. While two bisatellited markers may be associated with infertility, the phenotype in other cases ranged from borderline intelligence and mild dysmorphism to developmental delay, mental retardation, and congenital abnormalities. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.