Williams-Beuren syndrome (WBS) or Williams syndrome (OMIM 194050) is a multisystem disorder manifested by neurodevelopmental delay and is caused by a hemizygous deletion of ∼1.5-1.8 Mb in the 7q11.23 region. Clinical features include cardiovascular anomalies (mainly supravalvular aortic stenosis), peripheral pulmonary stenosis, distinctive facies, intellectual disability (usually mild), unique personality characteristics, and growth and endocrine abnormalities. Clinical diagnostic criteria are available for WBS; however, the mainstay of diagnosis is the detection of the contiguous gene deletion. Although FISH remains the most widely used laboratory test, the diagnosis can also be established by means of qPCR, MLPA, microsatellite marker analysis, and chromosomal microarray (CMA). We evaluated the utility of MLPA to detect deletion/duplication in the 7q11.23 region in 43 patients suspected to have WBS using MLPA kits for microdeletion syndromes. A hemizygous deletion in the 7q11.23 region was found in 41 (95.3%) patients using MLPA. One patient had an atypical deletion detected by CMA. During the initial period of this study, the results of 12 patients tested by MLPA were also confirmed by FISH. Compared to FISH and CMA, MLPA is a cheaper, high-throughput, less labor-intensive and less time-consuming technique for the diagnosis of WBS. Although CMA is expensive and labor-intensive, its effectiveness is demonstrated to detect an atypical deletion and to delineate the breakpoints.

Keywords:
Multisystem disorder, Williams-Beuren syndrome
1.
Amenta S, Sofocleous C, Kolialexi A, Thomaidis L, Giouroukos S, et al: Clinical manifestations and molecular investigation of 50 patients with Williams syndrome in the Greek population. Pediatr Res 57:789-795 (2005).
2.
Bayés M, Magano LF, Rivera N, Flores R, Pérez Jurado LA: Mutational mechanisms of Williams-Beuren syndrome deletions. Am J Hum Genet 73:131-151 (2003).
3.
Boggula VR, Shukla A, Danda S, Hariharan SV, Nampoothiri S, et al: Clinical utility of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification technique in identification of aetiology of unexplained mental retardation: a study in 203 Indian patients. Indian J Med Res 139:66-75 (2014).
4.
Botta A, Novelli G, Mari A, Novelli A, Sabani M, et al: Detection of an atypical 7q11.23 deletion in Williams syndrome patients which does not include the STX1A and FZD3 genes. J Med Genet 36:478-480 (1999).
5.
Committee on Genetics: American Academy of Pediatrics: Health care supervision for children with Williams syndrome. Pediatrics 107:1192-1204 (2001).
6.
Del Campo M, Antonell A, Magano LF, Muñoz FJ, Flores R, et al: Hemizygosity at the NCF1 gene in patients with Williams-Beuren syndrome decreases their risk of hypertension. Am J Hum Genet 78:533-542 (2006).
7.
Delgado LM, Gutierrez M, Augello B, Fusco C, Micale L, et al: A 1.3-Mb 7q11.23 atypical deletion identified in a cohort of patients with Williams-Beuren syndrome. Mol Syndromol 4:143-147 (2013).
8.
DeSilva U, Massa H, Trask BJ, Green ED: Comparative mapping of the region of human chromosome 7 deleted in Williams syndrome. Genome Res 9:428-436 (1999).
9.
Dutra RL, Honjo RS, Kulikowski LD, Fonseca FM, Pieri PC, et al: Copy number variation in Williams-Beuren syndrome: suitable diagnostic strategy for developing countries. BMC Res Notes 5:13 (2012).
10.
Euteneuer J, Carvalho CM, Kulkarni S, Vineyard M, Grady RM, et al: Molecular and phenotypic characterization of atypical Williams-Beuren syndrome. Clin Genet 86:487-491 (2014).
11.
Heller R, Rauch A, Lüttgen S, Schröder B, Winterpacht A: Partial deletion of the critical 1.5 Mb interval in Williams-Beuren syndrome. J Med Genet 40:e99 (2003).
12.
Hockenhull EL, Carette MJ, Metcalfe K, Donnai D, Read AP, Tassabehji M: A complete physical contig and partial transcript map of the Williams syndrome critical region. Genomics 58:138-145 (1999).
13.
Howald C, Merla G, Digilio MC, Amenta S, Lyle R, et al: Two high throughput technologies to detect segmental aneuploidies identify new Williams-Beuren syndrome patients with atypical deletions. J Med Genet 43:266-273 (2006).
14.
Howlin P, Udwin O: Outcome in adult life for people with Williams syndrome - results from a survey of 239 families. J Intellect Disabil Res 50:151-160 (2006).
15.
Lowery MC, Morris CA, Ewart A, Brothman LJ, Zhu XL, et al: Strong correlation of elastin deletions, detected by FISH, with Williams syndrome: evaluation of 235 patients. Am J Hum Genet 57:49-53 (1995).
16.
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, Biesecker LG, Brothman AR, et al: Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 86:749-764 (2010).
17.
Morris CA, Thomas IT, Greenberg F: Williams syndrome: autosomal dominant inheritance. Am J Med Genet 47:478-481 (1993).
18.
Nickerson E, Greenberg F, Keating MT, McCaskill C, Shaffer LG: Deletions of the elastin gene at 7q11.23 occur in approximately 90% of patients with Williams syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 56:1156-1161(1995).
19.
Ounap K, Laidre P, Bartsch O, Rein R, Lipping-Sitska M: Familial Williams-Beuren syndrome. Am J Med Genet 80:491-493 (1998).
20.
Pankau R, Siebert R, Kautza M, Schneppenheim R, Gosch A, et al: Familial Williams-Beuren syndrome showing varying clinical expression. Am J Med Genet 98:324-329 (2001).
21.
Patil SJ, Madhusudhan BG, Shah S, Suresh PV: Facial phenotype at different ages and cardiovascular malformations in children with Williams-Beuren syndrome: a study from India. Am J Med Genet A 158A:1729-1734 (2012).
22.
Pérez Jurado LA, Peoples R, Kaplan P, Hamel BC, Francke U: Molecular definition of the chromosome 7 deletion in Williams syndrome and parent-of-origin effects on growth. Am J Hum Genet 59:781-792 (1996).
23.
Pober BR: Williams-Beuren syndrome. N Engl J Med 362:239-252 (2010).
24.
Ramocki MB, Bartnik M, Szafranski P, Kołodziejska KE, Xia Z, et al: Recurrent distal 7q11.23 deletion including HIP1 and YWHAG identified in patients with intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, and neurobehavioral problems. Am J Hum Genet 87:857-865 (2010).
25.
Schouten JP, McElgunn CJ, Waaijer R, Zwijnenburg D, Diepvens F, Pals G: Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res 30:e57 (2002).
26.
Sharma P, Gupta N, Chowdhury MR, Sapra S, Shukla R, et al: Inherited 5p deletion syndrome due to paternal balanced translocation: phenotypic heterogeneity due to duplication of 8q and 12p. J Pediatr Genet 2:1-7 (2013).
27.
Strømme P, Bjørnstad PG, Ramstad K: Prevalence estimation of Williams syndrome. J Child Neurol 17:269-271 (2002).
28.
Stuppia L, Antonucci I, Palka G, Gatta V: Use of the MLPA assay in the molecular diagnosis of gene copy number alterations in human genetic diseases. Int J Mol Sci 13:3245-3276 (2012).
29.
van Hagen JM, Eussen HJ, van Schooten R, van Der Geest JN, Lagers-van Haselen GC, et al: Comparing two diagnostic laboratory tests for Williams syndrome: fluorescent in situ hybridization versus multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Genet Test 11:321-327 (2007a).
30.
van Hagen JM, van der Geest JN, van der Giessen RS, Lagers-van Haselen GC, Eussen HJ, et al: Contribution of CYLN2 and GTF2IRD1 to neurological and cognitive symptoms in Williams syndrome. Neurobiol Dis 26:112-124 (2007b).
31.
Wu YQ, Sutton VR, Nickerson E, Lupski JR, Potocki L, et al: Delineation of the common critical region in Williams syndrome and clinical correlation of growth, heart defects, ethnicity, and parental origin. Am J Med Genet 78:82-89 (1998).
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.