Despite significant advancements in the fields of genetics and genomics, and extensive research into the genetics of neurodevelopmental disorders, many cases and families remain unsolved. The proband in this study exhibited a constellation of clinical features, including global developmental delay, craniofacial anomalies, and CHD. These clinical findings raised suspicions of an underlying genetic cause. While initial karyotyping and exome analysis did not reveal any single gene mutations, subsequent investigations showed a CCR involving chromosomes 2, 5, and 18, further highlighting the importance of considering structural chromosomal abnormalities in cases of unexplained phenotypes.
The mechanism(s) underlying CCR formation remains elusive; some studies propose models based upon the principle of parsimony and the minimum number of breaks required for the formation of the CCR (10,11). Since this CCR involves three chromosomes and the presence of blunt fusions, direct orientations, and inverted orientations in the junction sequences indicates that the rearrangement is highly complex, consistent with chromoplexy (Fig. 4a). It is a complex genomic rearrangement mechanism that involves multiple double-strand breaks (DSBs) occurring in different regions of the genome (12). It often leads to a series of intricate chromosomal rearrangements and is characterized by the interplay of translocations, deletions, insertions, and inversions. In the context of the CCR described the presence of multiple derivative chromosomes: namely der(2), der(5), der(18), suggests that several DSBs occurred simultaneously, or in close succession, resulting in the intricate rearrangement observed. The CCR's involvement of chromosomes 2, 5, and 18 implies that these chromosomes were connected during the rearrangement process. Chromoplexy often forms multiple connections between different chromosomes, leading to the exchange of genetic material. This complexity arises from the diverse ways in which the DSBs are repaired, and the genomic regions are rearranged.
Our breakpoint data support the contention that NHEJ and/or alt-EJ mechanisms were involved in the repair of the DSBs. These mechanisms involve the direct joining of broken ends of DNA, often without the need for homologous sequences, and can lead to insertions, deletions, or inversions (13). The father's balanced rearrangement implies that NHEJ or alt-EJ was precise enough to create a stable, balanced configuration in his genome. However, the rearrangement became unbalanced when transmitted to the proband (Fig.4b). This CCR complies with most aspects of chromoplexy, including the involvement of >2 chromosomes, the absence of sequence homology at their fusion breakpoints (14). However, the fact that the breakpoints are not within transcriptionally active areas, which is usually the case in chromoplexy (14,15), stands against our hypothesis of chromoplexy-type event. Chromoplexy, chromothripsis, and chromoanasynthesis are designated terms that describe the phenomenology of the observed genome changes. The term chromoanagenesis, i.e., chromosome rebirth, encompasses the phenomena of extensive rearrangement occurring in a single cell burst (14–16). Chromothripsis could also be suggested as underlying mechanism of the CCR, given the lack of sequence homology at the breakpoints or only microhomology of a few nucleotides usually observed in chromothripsis similar to chromoplexy (15). Chromothripsis and chromoplexy were first characterized in cancer genomes, however, they also have been shown to underlie Mendelian diseases and genomic disorders (17,18).
Since the proband's genome carries this CCR in an unbalanced manner, this suggests an altered gene dosage for specific genes and regions of 5p loss and 18q gain involved in the CCR; the observation of a normal 2q31.3 dosage and absence of one junction fragment present in the father is consistent with the segregation of the paternal homologue with the deleted 2q31.3. This imbalance in the proband leads to changes in the expression of the genes mapping within the chr5p and chr18q dosage altered regions and can significantly impact the individual's phenotype. The father, on the other hand, carries the same CCR but in a balanced state, which explains the absence of the clinical phenotype that is observed in the child. This contrast highlights the importance of maintaining the proper gene dosage for normal development and function (19).
Several dosage-sensitive genes have been identified in the chr5p region that may contribute to the proband’s phenotype. For example, five genes (TERT, SEMA5A, MARCH6, CTNND2, NPR3) are classified as dosage sensitive leading to haploinsufficiency (20). Perhaps TERT haploinsufficiency could contribute to perturbations of telomere biology underlying some CCR. It is firmly established that the chr5p deletion is responsible for Cri du Chat syndrome (MIM#123450), characterized by a distinctive cat-like cry (21), while the duplication of 18q leads to Edwards syndrome (22,23). These are rare chromosomal syndromes, each associated with distinct physical and mental impairments. However, our case presents a unique clinical scenario, showcasing a blended phenotype that may exhibit some overlap with both Cri du chat and Edwards syndrome. This includes distinctive facies, involving a high forehead, arched eyebrows, epicanthic folds, wide palpebral fissures, and a hypoplastic mandible. These features are consistent with those seen in Cri du Chat syndrome and share some similarities with the facial features seen in Edwards syndrome (24), but the blending or mixture precludes diagnosis of either; particularly in the context of an initial ‘normal karyotype’. Global developmental delay, axial hypotonia, and other neurological findings are also observed in both Cri du Chat and Edwards syndrome.
Moreover, the child has a history of CHD, specifically a PDA and PFO. While CHD is not a hallmark feature of Cri du Chat syndrome, it can be present in some cases (24).
Taken together, the case stands as an exemplar of the intricate nature of chromosomal rearrangements and complexity of genome mutation, underscoring the importance of employing a diverse array of genomic technologies to untangle the consequences for both patient and family.