PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15213412

FISH Variants with D15Z1.

Abstract

We present our experience with cross-hybridization of D15Z1, used in combination with D15S10, D15S11 or SNRPN, in 109 clinical cases referred for Angelman syndrome (AS), Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), for autism to rule out duplication of 15q11.2, or to identify structural chromosome abnormalities thought to involve chromosome 15. Nine cases with normal karyotypes studied with at least one of these probe mixtures showed an extra signal with D15Z1 on a chromosome 14. One case showed absence of the D15Z1 signal from 15p and one case showed an extra signal with D15Z1 on both chromosome 14s. Sixteen cases from this series had structural abnormalities, which included ten cases with supernumerary markers, three of which had a D15Z1 signal on a chromosome 14. The remaining cases did not have an extra signal on chromosome 14, but included rearrangements between Y and 15, 15 and 19, and a r(15), all with breakpoints in 15p11.1 or p11.2. Of the three cases with a supernumerary marker and an extra D15Z1 signal on a chromosome 14, one was a maternally derived marker, while the variant 14 was paternal in origin. The other two markers were de novo. The high frequency of variant 14 in cases with supernumerary markers (30%) was not significant by Chi-square analysis compared to the overall frequency in 109 cases of 11.9%. The overall frequency is consistent with a previous report by Stergianou et al. (1993). We can now add that a false-negative result may occur slightly less than 1% of the time. The chance that both chromosome 14 homologs will be positive for D15Z1 is theoretically about 1 in 300. If associated with an abnormal phenotype, the possibility of uniparental disomy should be ruled out.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S. H. Shim, A. Pan, X. L. Huang, V. S. Tonk, S. K. Varma, J. M. Milunsky, H. E. Wyandt. 2003. FISH Variants with D15Z1.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15213412/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗