Copy number variants analysis in a cohort of isolated and syndromic developmental delay/intellectual disability reveals novel genomic disorders, position effects and candidate disease genes

• Published in: Clinical genetics 2017-10, Vol.92 (4), p.415-422
• Main Authors: Di Gregorio, E., Riberi, E., Belligni, E.F., Biamino, E., Spielmann, M., Ala, U., Calcia, A., Bagnasco, I., Carli, D., Gai, G., Giordano, M., Guala, A., Keller, R., Mandrile, G., Arduino, C., Maffè, A., Naretto, V.G., Sirchia, F., Sorasio, L., Ungari, S., Zonta, A., Zacchetti, G., Talarico, F., Pappi, P., Cavalieri, S., Giorgio, E., Mancini, C., Ferrero, M., Brussino, A., Savin, E., Gandione, M., Pelle, A., Giachino, D.F., De Marchi, M., Restagno, G., Provero, P., Cirillo Silengo, M., Grosso, E., Buxbaum, J.D., Pasini, B., De Rubeis, S., Brusco, A., Ferrero, G.B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; array‐CGH; autism spectrum disorder; Child; Child, Preschool; Chromosomal Position Effects - genetics; Chromosome Aberrations; CNV; Comparative Genomic Hybridization; Copy number; Data processing; developmental delay; Developmental disabilities; Developmental Disabilities - genetics; Developmental Disabilities - pathology; DNA Copy Number Variations - genetics; DNA-Binding Proteins - genetics; Female; Genetic Association Studies; genomic disorders; Genomics; Humans; Hybridization; Infant; Intellectual disabilities; intellectual disability; Intellectual Disability - genetics; Intellectual Disability - pathology; Male; Pathogenicity; Pedigree; Phenotype; Position effects; Rare diseases; Sequence Deletion - genetics; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0009-9163; 1399-0004
• DOI: 10.1111/cge.13009

Background Array‐comparative genomic hybridization (array‐CGH) is a widely used technique to detect copy number variants (CNVs) associated with developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID). Aims Identification of genomic disorders in DD/ID. Materials and methods We performed a comprehensive array‐CGH investigation of 1,015 consecutive cases with DD/ID and combined literature mining, genetic evidence, evolutionary constraint scores, and functional information in order to assess the pathogenicity of the CNVs. Results We identified non‐benign CNVs in 29% of patients. Amongst the pathogenic variants (11%), detected with a yield consistent with the literature, we found rare genomic disorders and CNVs spanning known disease genes. We further identified and discussed 51 cases with likely pathogenic CNVs spanning novel candidate genes, including genes encoding synaptic components and/or proteins involved in corticogenesis. Additionally, we identified two deletions spanning potential Topological Associated Domain (TAD) boundaries probably affecting the regulatory landscape. Discussion and conclusion We show how phenotypic and genetic analyses of array‐CGH data allow unraveling complex cases, identifying rare disease genes, and revealing unexpected position effects.