Rivista di formazione e aggiornamento professionale del pediatra e del medico di base, fondata nel 1982. In collaborazione con l'Associazione Culturale Pediatri.
Login Abbonamenti Pubblicazioni Carrello Registrazione Perché registrarsi? Contatti

Aggiornamento

PDF

Dieci anni di pediatria: che cosa è cambiato nella genetica

WHAT HAS CHANGED IN GENETICS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS

GIOVANNI CORSELLO

Dipartimento Materno-Infantile, Università di Palermo

Giugno 2006 - pagg. 359 -364

Abstract
The recent developments of genetics allow a clearer diagnosis of most of the syndromes and diseases due to defects of the genetic code and of the chromosomal pattern. New techniques such as FISH (Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization) and CGH-microarrays (Comparative Genomic Hybridization) may help to define those syndromes with submicroscopic abnormalities which cannot be diagnosed by standard cytogenetic analyses. In addition, such techniques may find subtelomeric rearrangements responsible for mental retardation and malformations with sporadic occurrence and without elements recalling any known syndrome (about 7% of severe mental retarded children show a telomeric defect). Syndromes with abnormalities of genetic mechanisms without mendelian inheritance may be diagnosed with DNA and cytogenetis procedures, showing for example defects of genomic imprinting, uniparental disomies, dynamic mutations with trinucleotied amplification. Prenatal diagnosis and therefore genetic counselling to couples and families may be influenced by the application of these new techniques
Bibliografia
1. Sanlaville D, Lapierre JM, Turleau C, et al. Molecular karyotyping in human constitutional cytogenetics. Eur J Med Genet 2005;48: 214-31.
2. Vermeesch JR. From chromosomes to molecular karyotyping. Eur J Med Genet 2005; 48:211-3.
3. de Vries BBA, White SM, Knight SJL, et al. Clinical studies on submicroscopic subtelomeric rearrangements. A checklist. J Med Genet 2001;38:145-50.
4. Mao R, Pevsner J. The use of genomic microarrays to study chromosomal abnormalities in mental retardation. MRDD Research Reviews 2005;11:279-85.
5. Vissers LELM, Veltman JA, van Kessel G, Brunner HG. Identification of disease genes by whole genome CGH arrays. Hum Mol Genet 2005;14:R251-R223.
6. Lambert RD. Safety issues in assisted reproductive technology: aetiology of health problems in singleton ART babies. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1987-91.
7. Schieve LA, Rasmussen SA, Buck GM, Schendel DE, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Are children born after assisted reproductive technology at increased risk for adverse health outcomes? Obstet & Gynecol 2004;103:1154- 63.
8. Mooney MP, Siegel MI. Understanding craniofacial anomalies. New York: Wiley, 2002.
9. Baty BJ, Baker DL (Eds). Seminars in Medical Genetics. The evolving practice of genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet 2001;106:175- 240.
10. Hogge WA, Surti U, Kochmar SJ, Mowery- Rushton P, Cumbie K. Molecular cytogenetics: an essential component of modern prenatal diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175:352-7.
11. Brock DJH, Rodeck CH, Ferguson-Smith MA. Prenatal diagnosis and screening. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1992.

Corrispondenza: giocors@aliceposta.it