Small supernumerary maker chromosomes (sSMC) and uniparental disomy (UPD) are rare, and a combination of both is rarely encountered. Accordingly, only 46 sSMC cases UPD have been reported. Despite of its rareness, UPD has to be considered, especially in prenatal cases with sSMC. Here, the authors reviewed all sSMC cases with UPD (sSMCU+) and compared them to sSMC without UPD (sSMCU−), which resulted in the following correlations: 1) every sSMC, irrespective of its chromosomal origin, may be principally connected with UPD; 2) mixed hetero- and iso-UPD (hUPD/iUPD) can be observed most often in sSMCU+ cases followed by complete iUPD, complete hUPD, and segmental iUPD; 3) UPD of chromosomes 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 20 is most often reported in sSMCU+; 4) maternal UPD was approximately nine times more frequent than paternal UPD; 5) if mosaic with a normal cell line, acrocentric-derived sSMC had a three times higher chance of occurrence than the corresponding nonmosaic sSMC cases; 6) UPD in connection with a parentally inherited sSMC is, if existent at all, a rare event; and 7) the gender type and shape of sSMC had no effect on UPD formation. Overall, sSMCU+ cases may have a story to tell about chromosome number control mechanisms in early embryogenesis.

BackgroundComplex small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) constitute one of the smallest subgroups of sSMC in general. Complex sSMC consist of chromosomal material derived from more than one chromosome; the best known representative of this group is the derivative chromosome 22 {der(22)t(11;22)} or Emanuel syndrome. In 2008 we speculated that complex sSMC could be part of an underestimated entity.ResultsHere, the overall yet reported 412 complex sSMC are summarized. They constitute 8.4% of all yet in detail characterized sSMC cases. The majority of the complex sSMC is contributed by patients suffering from Emanuel syndrome (82%). Besides there are a der(22)t(8;22)(q24.1;q11.1) and a der(13)t(13;18)(q11;p11.21) or der(21)t(18;21)(p11.21;q11.1) = der(13 or 21)t(13 or 21;18) syndrome. The latter two represent another 2.6% and 2.2% of the complex sSMC-cases, respectively. The large majority of complex sSMC has a centric minute shape and derives from an acrocentric chromosome. Nonetheless, complex sSMC can involve material from each chromosomal origin. Most complex sSMC are inherited form a balanced translocation in one parent and are non-mosaic. Interestingly, there are hot spots for the chromosomal breakpoints involved.ConclusionsComplex sSMC need to be considered in diagnostics, especially in non-mosaic, centric minute shaped sSMC. As yet three complex-sSMC-associated syndromes are identified. As recurrent breakpoints in the complex sSMC were characterized, it is to be expected that more syndromes are identified in this subgroup of sSMC. Overall, complex sSMC emphasize once more the importance of detailed cytogenetic analyses, especially in patients with idiopathic mental retardation.

Somatic mosaicism is something that is observed in everyday lives of cytogeneticists. Chromosome instability is one of the leading causes of large-scale genome variation analyzable since the correct human chromosome number was established in 1956. Somatic mosaicism is also a well-known fact to be present in cases with small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC), i.e. karyotypes of 47,+mar/46. In this study, the data available in the literature were collected concerning the frequency mosaicism in different subgroups of patients with sSMC. Of 3124 cases with sSMC 1626 (52%) present with somatic mosaicism. Some groups like patients with Emanuel-, cat-eye- or i(18p)- syndrome only tend rarely to develop mosaicism, while in Pallister-Killian syndrome every patient is mosaic. In general, acrocentric and non-acrocentric derived sSMCs are differently susceptible to mosaicism; non-acrocentric derived ones are hereby the less stable ones. Even though, in the overwhelming majority of the cases, somatic mosaicism does not have any detectable clinical effects, there are rare cases with altered clinical outcomes due to mosaicism. This is extremely important for prenatal genetic counseling. Overall, as mosaicism is something to be considered in at least every second sSMC case, array-CGH studies cannot be offered as a screening test to reliably detect this kind of chromosomal aberration, as low level mosaic cases and cryptic mosaics are missed by that.

BackgroundSmall supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) are detected in 0.043% of general population and can be characterized for their chromosomal origin, genetic content and shape by molecular cytogenetic approaches. Even though recently progress was achieved towards genotype-phenotype-correlations of sSMC, nothing is known on the influence that an additional derivative extra chromosome has on the nuclear architecture.ResultsHere we present the first three-dimensional interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies for the nuclear architecture of sSMC. It could be shown that sSMC derived from chromosomes 15, 16 or 18 preferentially colocalized with one of their corresponding sister chromosomes. This was true in B- and T-lymphocytes as well as in skin fibroblasts. Additionally, a case with a complex sSMC with a karyotype 47,XY,+der(18)t(8;18)(8p23.2 ~ 23.1;18q11.1) was studied. Here the sSMC co-localized with one homologous chromosome 8 instead of 18.ConclusionOverall, there is a kind of "attraction" between an sSMC and one of its homologous sister chromosomes. This seems to be transmitted by the euchromatic part of the sSMC rather than its heterochromatic one.