Content uploaded by Georg Hillebrand
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Georg Hillebrand on Nov 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Electronic letter
J Med Genet 2000;37 (http://jmedgenet.com/cgi/content/full/37/9/e23)
DiGeorge syndrome with discordant
phenotype in monozygotic twins
EDITOR—In a recent issue of this journal, Goodship et al1
reported monozygotic twins with a deletion in chromosome
region 22q11 and a discordant phenotype. They concluded
that phenotypic variability in this syndrome cannot be
explained on the basis of genotypic diVerences alone.
Here we report another case of monozygotic twins with
an identical deletion in 22q11 but with discordant
manifestation of heart disease. The Turkish twins who were
born 4 weeks preterm presented with typical symptoms of
DiGeorge syndrome. Both boys had characteristic dysmor-
phic features, including short palpebral fissures, square
nasal tip, small mouth, and prominent forehead. Both had
hypoplasia of the thymus with markedly decreased levels of
CD3 positive lymphocytes (50 and 39% of the total,
respectively). Hypocalcaemia owing to low levels of
parathyroid hormone (0.76 and 0.7 pmol/l, respectively)
was found in both infants, leading to hypocalcaemic
seizures in twin 1. Now, at 12 months of age, both infants
show significant developmental delay. They are both rather
quiet and display a general lack of activity. The second
twin’s coordination and motor skills are at a 6-8 month
level and twin 1 is doing slightly better. Neither of them can
stand alone or has started walking yet.
In contrast to the previously mentioned manifestations,
the cardiac defects of the two children were significantly
diVerent. Twin 1 only had a small atrial septal defect with
spontaneous closure at 9 months of age, whereas the other
twin had complex heart disease consisting of an atrial sep-
tal defect, a large ventricular septal defect, a patent ductus
arteriosus, and an interrupted aortic arch distal to the ori-
gin of the left carotid artery (type 1b) necessitating cardiac
surgery on the second day of life.
Zygosity studies were carried out by typing for red cell
antigens (ABO, rhesus, MNSs, Kell) and plasma proteins
(haptoglobin, plasminogen, á1-antitrypsin, group specific
component, complement c3, transferrin, properdin factor
B) and erythrocyte enzymes (phosphoglucomutase, eryth-
rocyte acid phosphatase). Additionally, Southern blot
analysis of restricted DNA fragments (RFLP) with single
locus probes for hypervariable DNA polymorphisms MS1,
MS31, MS43a, MS205, YNH24, and G3 was performed
as well as PCR analysis of short tandem repeat systems
(VWA, TH01, FES). All tests showed an identical
genotype in both twins; thus the probability that they are
not monozygotic can be calculated to be <4.8 ×10-7. Cyto-
genetic analysis of 20 G banded metaphases of each twin
showed a male karyotype without numerical or gross
structural aberrations in either patient. However, fluores-
cence in situ hybridisation (FISH) with a probe for locus
D22S75 (Oncor, Heidelberg, Germany) and the more dis-
tally located probe TUPLE1 (Vysis, Bergisch-Gladbach,
Germany) detected a microdeletion in the region 22q11.2
in both twins. Thus,both twins have a karyotype 46,XY.ish
del(22)(q11.2 q11.2)(D22S75−, TUPLE−). There was
no evidence for a deletion or any other alteration of the
chromosomal region 22q11 nor for other structural or
numerical chromosomal changes in either parent by both
cytogenetic and FISH analysis.
This case draws attention to the possibility that non-
genetic factors contribute to the phenotype of patients with
microdeletion in 22q11. In this respect, it is interesting that
Ryan et al2also discussed such mechanisms when reporting
on a European collaborative study of 556 patients with dele-
tions in 22q11. Among them, there were 12 families with
more than one sib aVected. Comparison of sibs of the same
family showed a significant degree of variation of symptoms,
particularly in heart abnormalities. In their report, Goodship
et al1discussed the possibility of non-genetic influences that
could result in diVerent manifestation of defects. Monozy-
gosity on its own has been shown to account for a higher
incidence of a wide spectrum of heart malformations; how-
ever, the defect seen in our patient is quite characteristic for
DiGeorge syndrome and hence should be discussed in rela-
tion to the microdeletion. Goodship et al1hypothesised that
a deletion in 22q11 only predisposed twins to malforma-
tions, while the twinning process itself with factors such as
growth disadvantage, disturbance of laterality, and possible
placental vascular anastomoses with twin-twin transfusion
provides an additive eVect which then results in manifesta-
tion of the defect in only one of the twins.
The relevance of non-genetic factors as discussed above
is diYcult to evaluate, but they may certainly play a role.
Another possible reason for discordance in phenotype
could be an additional acquired change of genetic
information in only one twin. This could aVect the region
of 22q11, for example by point mutations, a small deletion
resulting in loss of hemizygosity, or alterations of imprint-
ing, but could also aVect other chromosomal regions. Such
a second, somatic mutation would have to occur locally,for
example in embryonic tissue involved in organogenesis of
the heart. Even within 22q11, several genes have been sug-
gested as possible candidates for DiGeorge syndrome. This
will probably make proving this hypothesis a diYcult task.
In summary, we report a second pair of monozygotic
twins with a microdeletion in 22q11 with significantly dis-
cordant manifestation of heart disease. This observation
provides further evidence that the variability of clinical
symptoms in patients with microdeletions in 22q11 cannot
be explained by the deletion itself nor by an eVect resulting
simply from interaction with other genes. It underlines that
exogenous factors that either do or do not aVect other
genes contribute to the manifestation of clinical symptoms
in 22q11 microdeletion syndromes.
G HILLEBRAND*
R SIEBERT†
E SIMEONI‡
R SANTER*
*Department of Paediatrics, University of Kiel, Schwanenweg 20, 24105
Kiel, Germany
†Department of Human Genetics, University of Kiel, Schwanenweg 24,
24105 Kiel, Ger many
‡Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Kiel, Schwanenweg 20,
24105 Kiel, Ger many
Correspondence to: Dr Hillebrand, Ghillebrand@pediatrics.uni-kiel.de
1 Goodship J, Cross I, Scambler P, Burn J. Monozygotic twins with chromo-
some 22q11 deletion and discordant phenotype J Med Genet 1995;32:746-
8.
2 Ryan AK, Goodship JA, Wilson, DI, Philip N, Levy A, Seidel H, SchuVen-
hauer S, Oechsler H, Belohradsky B, Prieur M, Aurias A, Raymond FL,
Clayton-Smith J, Hatchwell E, McKeown C, Beemer FA, Dallapiccola B,
Novelli G, Hurst JA, Ignatius J, Green JA, Winter RM, Brueton L,
Brøndum-Nielsen L, Stewart F, Van Essen T, Patton M, Paterson J,
Scambler PJ. Spectrum of clinical features associated with interstitial chro-
mosome 22q11 deletions: a European collaborative study. J Med Genet
1997;34:798-804.
Electronic letter 1of1
www.jmedgenet.com
on 1 November 2018 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://jmg.bmj.com/J Med Genet: first published as 10.1136/jmg.37.9.e23 on 1 September 2000. Downloaded from