Marker Chromosomes

REFERENCES

• Froland A, Holst G, Terslev E. Multiple anomalies associated with an extra small autosome. Cytogenetics 2:99–106, 1963.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ilberry PLT, Lee CWG, Winn SM. Incomplete trisomy in a mongoloid child exhibiting minimal stigmata. Medical Journal of Australia 48:182–4, 1961.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ellis JR, Marshall R, Penrose LS. An aberrant small acrocentric chromosome. Ann Hum Genet 26:77–83, 1962.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Mrasek K, Kosyakova N, Ogilvie CM, Vermeesch J, Trifonov V, Rubtsov N. Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) in humans; are there B chromosomes hidden among them. Mol Cytogenet 1(1):12, 2008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dalpra L, Giardino D, Finelli P, Corti C, Valtorta C, Guerneri S, Ilardi P, Fortuna R, Coviello D, Nocera G, Amico FP, Martinoli E, Sala E, Villa N, Crosti F, Chiodo F, di Cantogno LV, Savin E, Croci G, Franchi F, Venti G, Donti E, Migliori V, Pettinari A, Bonifacio S, Centrone C, Torricelli F, Rossi S, Simi P, Granata P, Casalone R, Lenzini E, Artifoni L, Pecile V, Barlati S, Bellotti D, Caufin D, Police A, Cavani S, Piombo G, Pierluigi M, Larizza L. Cytogenetic and molecular evaluation of 241 small supernumerary marker chromosomes: cooperative study of 19 Italian laboratories. Genet Med 7(9):620–5, 2005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liehr T, Claussen U, Starke H. Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) in humans. Cytogenet Genome Res 107(1–2):55–67, 2004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff DJ, Schwartz S. Characterization of Robertsonian translocations by using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Am J Hum Genet 50:174–81, 1992.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lasan Trcic R, Hitree V, Letica L, Cuk M, Begovic D. Small supernumerary marker chromosome derived from proximal p-arm of chromosome 2: identification by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Croat Med J 44:477–9, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paoloni-Giacobino A, Morris MA, Dahoun SP. Prenatal supernumerary r(16) chromosome characterized by multiprobe FISH with normal pregnancy outcome. Prenat Diagn 18(7):751–2, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warburton D. De novo balanced chromosome rearrangements and extra marker chromosomes identified at prenatal diagnosis: clinical significance and distribution of breakpoints. Am J Hum Genet 49(5):995–1013, 1991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crolla JA. FISH and molecular studies of autosomal supernumerary marker chromosomes excluding those derived from chromosome 15: II. Review of the literature. Am J Med Genet 75(4):367–81, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graf MD, Christ L, Mascarello JT, Mowrey P, Pettenati M, Stetten G, Storto P, Surti U, Van Dyke DL, Vance GH, Wolff D, Schwartz S. Redefining the risks of prenatally ascertained supernumerary marker chromosomes: a collaborative study. J Med Genet 43(8):660–4, 2006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hook EB, Cross PK. Extra structurally abnormal chromosomes (ESAC) detected at amniocentesis: frequency in approximately 75,000 prenatal cytogenetic diagnoses and associations with maternal and paternal age. Am J Hum Genet 40(2):83–101, 1987; Erratum in: Am J Hum Genet 42(1):210, 1988.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blennow E, Bui TH, Kristoffersson U, Vujic M, Anneren G, Holmberg E, Nordenskjold M. Swedish survey on extra structurally abnormal chromosomes in 39 105 consecutive prenatal diagnoses: prevalence and characterization by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Prenat Diagn 14(11):1019–28, 1994.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Ewers E, Kosyakova N, Klaschka V, Rietz F, Wagner R, Weise A. Handling small supernumerary marker chromosomes in prenatal diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 9(4):317–24, 2009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Standing Committee on Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature. ISCN 2009: An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature, Shaffer LG, Tommerup N (Eds.). Basel, Switzerland: S Karger, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Liehr T. Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMCs): a spotlight on some nomenclature problems. (Letter to the Editor). J Histochem & Cytochem 57(11): 991–3, 2009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blennow E, Tillberg E. Small extra ring chromosome derived from chromosome 10p: clinical report and characterisation by FISH. J Med Genet 33(5):399–402, 1996.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bartels I, Schlueter G, Liehr T, von Eggeling F, Starke H, Glaubitz R, Burfeind P. Supernumerary small marker chromosome (SMC) and uniparental disomy 22 in a child with confined placental mosaicism of trisomy 22: trisomy rescue due to marker chromosome formation. Cytogenet Genome Res 101(2):103–5, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daniel A, Malafiej P. A Series of supernumerary small ring marker autosomes identified by FISH with chromosome probe arrays and literature review excluding chromosome 15. Am J Med Genet 117A(3):212–22, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts SE, Maggouta F, Thomas NS, Jacobs PA, Crolla JA. Molecular and fluorescent in situ hybridization characterization of the breakpoints in 46 large supernumerary marker 15 chromosomes reveals an unexpected level of complexity. Am J Hum Genet 73:1061–72, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Mrasek K, Weise A, Dufke A, Rodriguez L, Martinez Guardia N, Sanchis A, Vermeesch JR, Ramel C, Polityko A, Haas OA, Anderson J, Claussen U, von Eggeling F, Starke H. Small supernumerary marker chromosomes –progress towards a genotype-phenotype correlation. Cytogenet Genome Res 112:23–34, 2006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felka T, Lemke J, Lemke C, Michel S, Liehr T, Claussen U. DNA degradation during maturation of erythrocytes - molecular cytogenetic characterization of Howell-Jolly bodies. Cytogenet Genome Res 119(1–2):2–8, 2007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schreck RR, Breg WR, Erlanger BF, Miller OJ. Preferential derivation of abnormal human G-group-like chromosomes from chromosome 15. Hum Genet 36:1–12, 1977.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dewald GW, Isodicentric X chromosomes in humans: origin, segregation behaviour, and replication band patterns, in Sandberg AA (Ed.), Cytogenetics of the Mammalian X Chromosome, Part A. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Schuffenhauer S, Kobelt A, Daumer-Haas C, Löffler C, Muller G, Murken J, Meitinger T. Interstitial deletion 5p accompanied by dicentric ring formation of the deleted segment resulting in trisomy 5p13-cen. Am J Med Genet 65:56–9, 1996.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stavropoulou C, Mignon C, Delobel B, Moncla A, Depetris D, Croquette MF, Mattei MG. Severe phenotype resulting from an active ring X chromosome in a female with a complex karyotype: characterization and replication study. J Med Genet 35:932–8, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stankiewicz P, Brozek I, Helias-Rodzewicz Z, Wierzba J, Pilch J, Bocian E, Balcerska A, Wozniak A, Kardas I, Wirth J, Mazurczak T, Limon J. Clinical and molecular-cytogenetic studies in seven patients with ring chromosome 18. Am J Med Genet 101:226–39, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michalski K, Rauer M, Williamson N, Perszyk A, Hoo JJ. Identification, counselling, and outcome of two cases of prenatally diagnosed supernumerary small ring chromosomes. Am J Med Genet 46:88–94, 1993.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Choo KH. Centromere DNA dynamics: latent centromeres and neocentromere formation. Am J Hum Genet 61:1225–33, 1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Utine GE, Trautmann U, Rauch A, Kuechler A, Pietrzak J, Bocian E, Kosyakova N, Mrasek K, Boduroglu K, Weise A, Aktas D. Neocentric small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC), three new cases and review of the literature. Cytogenet Genome Res 118: 31–7, 2007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Voullaire L, Saffery R, Earle E, Irvine DV, Slater H, Dale S, du Sart D, Fleming T, Choo KH. Mosaic inv dup(8p) marker chromosome with stable neocentromere suggests neocentromerization is a postzygotic event. Am J Med Genet 102:86–94, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warburton PE. Chromosomal dynamics of human neocentromere formation. Chromosome Res 12(6): 617–26, 2004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fang YY, Eyre HJ, Bohlander SK, Estop A, McPherson E, Trager T, Riess O, Callen DF. Mechanisms of small ring formation suggested by the molecular characterization of two small accessory ring chromosomes derived from chromosome 4. Am J Hum Genet 57:1137–42, 1995.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Callen DF, Eyre H, Fang YY, Guan XY, Veleba A, Martin NJ, McGill J, Haan EA. Origins of accessory small ring marker chromosomes derived from chromosome 1. J Med Genet 36:847–53, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Starke H, Nietzel A, Weise A, Heller A, Mrasek K, Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMCs): genotype-phenotype correlation and classification. Hum Genet 114:51–67, 2003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trifonov V, Fluri S, Binkert F, Nandini A, Anderson J, Rodriguez L, Gross M, Kosyakova N, Mkrtchyan H, Ewers E, Reich D, Weise A, Liehr T. Complex rearranged small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC), three new cases; evidence for an underestimated entity? Mol Cytogenet 1: 6–13, 2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emanuel BS. Molecular mechanisms and diagnosis of chromosome 22q11.2 rearrangements. Dev Disabil Res Rev 14:11–8, 2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uchida IA, Wang HC, Laxdal OE, Zaleski WA, Duncan BP. Partial trisomy-deficiency syndrome resulting from a reciprocal translocation in a large kindred. Cytogenetics 3:81–96, 1964.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bröndum-Nielsen K. Extra small marker chromosome associated with normal phenotype due to 3:1 disjunction of t(14;22) in a parent. Implications for the origin of marker chromosomes. Clin Genet 40:215–7, 1991.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crolla JA, Long F, Rivera H, Dennis NR. FISH and molecular study of autosomal supernumerary marker chromosomes excluding those derived from chromosomes 15 and 22. I. Results of 26 new cases. Am J Med Genet 75:355–66, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Minelli E, Müller-Navia J, Mazzola D, Miny P, Bronz L, Uhr M. Characterization of a marker chromosome with FISH and microdissection in prenatal diagnosis. Annales de Genetique 46:325, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Blennow E, Telenius H, Larsson C, de Vos D, Bajalica S, Ponder BA, Nordenskjold M. Complete characterization of a large marker chromosome by reverse and forward chromosome painting. Hum Genet 90:371–4, 1992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaikh TH, Budarf ML, Celle L, Zackai EH, Emanuel BS. Clustered 11q23 and 22q11 breakpoints and 3:1 meiotic malsegregation in multiple unrelated t(11;22) families. Am J Hum Genet 65:1595–607, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ulmer R, Pfeiffer RA, Wiest E, Goelz R, Trautmann U. Multiple (up to seven) different accessory small marker chromosomes: prenatal diagnosis and follow-up. Ann Genet 40:109–14, 1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vermeesch JR, Duhamel H, Petit P, Falzetti D, Fryns JP, Marynen P. Multiple small accessory marker chromosomes from different centromeric origin in a moderately mentally retarded male. Hum Genet 105:611–8, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Weise A. Frequency of small supernumerary marker chromosomes in prenatal, newborn, developmentally retarded and infertility diagnostics. Int J Mol Med 19(5):719–31, 2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liehr T. Familial small supernumerary marker chromosomes are predominantly inherited via the maternal line (Letters to the Editor). Genetics in Medicine 8:459–62, 2006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mau-Holtzmann UA. Somatic chromosomal abnormalities in infertile men and women. Cytogenet Genome Res 111:317–36, 2005.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manvelyan M, Riegel M, Santos M, Fuster C, Pellestor F, Mazauric ML, Schulze B, Thirty-two new cases with small supernumerary marker chromosomes detected in connection with fertility problems: detailed molecular cytogenetic characterization and review of the literature. Int J Mol Med 21:705–14, 2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bröndum-Nielsen K, Mikkelsen M. A 10-year survey, 1980–1990, of prenatally diagnosed small supernumerary marker chromosomes, identified by FISH analysis. Outcome and follow-up of 14 cases diagnosed in a series of 12,699 prenatal samples. Prenat Diagn 15:615–9, 1995.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sumption ND, Barber JC. A transmitted deletion of 2q13 to 2q14.1 causes no phenotypic abnormalities. J Med Genet 38:125–7, 2001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Malafiej P, Levy B, Mahmood R, Field M, Hughes T, Lockhart LH, Wu Z, Huang M, Hirschhorn K, Velagaleti GV, Daniel A, Warburton PE. Chromosome 13q neocentromeres: molecular cytogenetic characterization of three additional cases and clinical spectrum. Am J Med Genet 110:258–67, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderlid BM, Sahlen S, Schoumans J, Holmberg E, Ahsgren I, Mortier G, Speleman F, Blennow E. Detailed characterization of 12 supernumerary ring chromosomes using micro-FISH and search for uniparental disomy. Am J Med Genet 99:223–33, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liehr T, Karamysheva T, Merkas M, Brecevic L, Hamid AB, Ewers E, Mrasek K, Kosyakova N, Weise A. Somatic mosaicism in cases with small supernumerary marker chromosomes. Current Genomics 11:432–9, 2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nietzel A, Rocchi M, Starke H, Heller A, Fiedler W, Wlodarska I, Loncarevic IF, Beensen V, Claussen U, Liehr T. A new multicolor-FISH approach for the characterization of marker chromosomes: centromere-specific multicolor-FISH (cenM-FISH). Hum Genet 108:199–204, 2001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos M, Mrasek K, Rigola MA, Starke H, Liehr T, Fuster C. Indentification of ‘cryptic mosaicism’ involving at least four different small supernumerary marker chromosomes derived from chromosome 9 in a woman without reproductive success. Fertil Steril 88(4):969.e11–969.e17, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Tan-Sindhunata G, Castedo S, Leegte B, Mulder I, vd Veen AY, vd Hout AH, Wiersma TJ, van Essen AJ. Molecular cytogenetic characterization of a small, familial supernumerary ring chromosome 7 associated with mental retardation and an abnormal phenotype. Am J Med Genet 92(2):147–52, 2000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fickelscher I, Starke H, Schulze E, Ernst G, Kosyakova N, Mkrtchyan H, MacDermont K, Sebire N, Liehr T. A further case with a small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC) derived from chromosome 1–evidence for high variability in mosaicism in different tissues of sSMC carriers. Prenat Diagn 27(8):783–5, 2007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nucaro AL, Rossino R, Pruna D, Rassu S, Cianchetti C, Cao A, Moi P. Prenatal diagnosis of a mosaic supernumerary marker iso(8p) (tetrasomy 8p): discordance between chorionic villi culture and amniotic fluid karyotypes. Prenat Diagn 26;418–9, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Queisser-Luft A, Stolz G, Wiesel A, Schlaefer K, Spranger J. Malformations in newborn: results based on 30,940 infants and fetuses from the Mainz congenital birth defect monitoring system (1990-1998). Arch Gynecol Obstet 266:163–7, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar C, Kleyman SM, Samonte RV, Verma RS. Marker chromosomes in fetal loss. Hum Reprod 12(6):1321–4, 1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holland AJ, Ford WD, Linke RJ, Furness ME, Hayward C. Influence of antenatal ultrasound on the management of fetal exomphalos. Fetal Diagn Ther 14(4):223–8, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergé SJ, Plath H, von Lindern JJ, Appel T, Niederhagen B, Van de Vondel PT, Hansmann M. Natural history of 70 fetuses with a prenatally diagnosed orofacial cleft. Fetal Diagn Ther 17(4):247–51, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chandley AC, Edmond P, Christie S, Gowans L, Fletcher J, Frackiewicz A, Newton M. Cytogenetics and infertility in man. I. Karyotype and seminal analysis: results of a five-year survey of men attending a subfertility clinic. Ann Hum Genet 39:231–54, 1975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinbach P, Djalali M. Ineffectivity of accessory bisatellited marker chromosomes in inducing meiotic nondisjunction. Hum Genet 64:402–3, 1983.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irwin DL, Bryan JL, Chan FY, Matthews PL, Healey SC, Peters M, Findlay I. Prenatal diagnosis of tetrasomy 18p using multiplex fluorescent PCR and comparison with a variety of techniques. Genetic Testing 7(1):1–6, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraccaro M, Lindsten J, Ford CE, Iselius L. The 11q;22q translocation: a European collaborative analysis of 43 cases. Hum Genet 56:21–51, 1980.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schinzel A, Schmid W, Fraccaro M, Tiepolo L, Zuffardi O, Opitz JM, Lindsten J, Zetterqvist P, Enell H, Baccichetti C, Tenconi R, Pagon RA. The “cat eye syndrome”: dicentric small marker chromosome probably derived from a no.22 (tetrasomy 22pter to q11) associated with a characteristic phenotype. Report of 11 patients and delineation of the clinical picture. Hum Genet 57:148–58, 1981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peltomaki P, Knuutila S, Ritvanen A, Kaitila I, de la Chapelle A. Pallister-Killian syndrome: cytogenetic and molecular studies. Clin Genet 31:399–405, 1987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallister PD, Meisner LF, Elejalde BR, The Pallister mosaic syndrome. Birth Defects 13:103–10, 1977.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killian W, Teschier-Nicola M. Case report 72: mental retardation, unusual facial appearance, abnormal hair. Synd Ident 7:6–7, 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Gilgenkrantz S, Droulle P, Schweitzer M, Mosaic tetrasomy 12p. Clin Genet 28:495–502, 1985.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harrison V, Williams R, Connell L, Kini U. Diagnosis of Pallister-Killian syndrome by array comparative genome hybridization from a spleen sample. Clin Dysmorph 20(1):58–60, 2011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Langford K, Hodgson S, Seller M, Maxwell D. Pallister-Killian syndrome presenting through nuchal translucency screening for trisomy 21. Prenat Diagn 20:670–2, 2000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abad DE, Gabarre JA, Izquierdo AM, Pallister-Killian syndrome presenting with a complex congenital heart defect and increased nuchal translucency. J Ultrasound Med 25:1475–80, 2006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mourali M, El Fekih C, Dimassi K, Fatnassi A, Zineb NB, Oueslati B. First trimester diagnosis of Pallister-Killian syndrome in a fetus with suggestive abnormalities. Tunis Med 88(9):666–9, 2010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paladini D, Borghese A, Arienzo M, Prospective ultrasound diagnosis of Pallister-Killian syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy: the importance of the fetal facial profile. Prenat Diagn 20:996–8, 2000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doray B, Girard-Lemaire F, Gasser B, Baldauf JJ, Geeter B, Spizzo M, Pallister-Killian syndrome: difficulties of prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 22:470–7, 2002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz J, Schoner K, Stein W, Rehder H, Fritz B. Tetrasomy 12p (Pallister-Killian syndrome): difficulties in prenatal diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:1049–53, 2009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mathieu M, Piussan C, Thepot F, Gouget A, Lacombe D, Pedespan JM, Collaborative study of mosaic tetrasomy 12p or Pallister-Killian syndrome (nineteen fetuses or children). Ann Genet 40:45–54, 1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Callen DF, Freemantle CJ, Ringenbergs ML, Baker E, Eyre HJ, Romain D, Haan EA. The isochromosome 18p syndrome: confirmation of cytogenetic diagnosis in nine cases by in situ hybridization. Am J Hum Genet 47:493–8, 1990.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dundar M, Caglayan AO, Saatci C, Cetin Z, Arslan K, Uzak AS. A case with a rare chromosomal abnormality: isochromosome 18p. Genet Couns 21(1):69–74, 2010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brambila Tapia AJ, Figuera L, Vázquez Cárdenas NA, Ramírez Torres V, Vázquez Velázquez AI, García Contreras C, Ramírez Dueñas ML. The variable phenotype in tetrasomy 18p syndrome. A propos of a subtle dysmorphic case. Genet Couns 21(3):277–83, 2010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carter MT, St. Pierre SA, Zackai EH, Emanuel BS, Boycott KM. Phenotypic delineation of Emanuel syndrome (supernumerary derivative 22 syndrome): Clinical features of 63 individuals. Am J Med Genet 149A:1712–21, 2009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medne L, Zackai EH, Emanuel BS, .Emanuel Syndrome. In: Pagon RA, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Stephens K, eds. GeneReviews [Internet]. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2007 [updated 2010 May 11].
   Google Scholar
• Emanuel BS, Zackai EH, Aronson MM, Mellman WJ, Moorhead PS. Abnormal chromosome 22 and recurrence of trisomy-22 syndrome. J Med Genet 13:501–6, 1976.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zackai EH, Emanuel BS. Site-specific reciprocal translocation, t(11;22)(q23;q11), in several unrelated families with 3:1 meiotic disjunction. Am J Med Genet 7:507–21, 1980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermid HE, Morrow BE. Genomic disorders on 22q11. Am J Hum Genet 70:1077–88, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berends MJ, Tan-Sindhunata G, Leegte B, van Essen AJ. Phenotypic variability of Cat-Eye syndrome. Genet Couns 12;23–34, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDermid HE, Duncan AM, Brasch KR, Holden JJ, Magenis E, Sheehy R, Burn J, Kardon N, Noel B, gfdSchinzel A, Teshima I, White BN. Characterization of the supernumerary chromosome in cat eye syndrome. Science 232:646–8, 1986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears AJ, Duncan AMV, Budarf ML, Emanuel BS, Sellinger B, Siegel-Bartelt J, Greenberg CR, McDermid HE. Molecular characterization of the marker chromosome associated with Cat Eye Syndrome. Am J Hum Genet 55:134–42, 1994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McTaggart KE, Budarf ML, Driscoll DA, Emanuel BS, Ferreira P, McDermid HE. Cat eye syndrome chromosome breakpoint clustering: identification of two intervals also associated with 22q11 deletion syndrome breakpoints. Cytogenet Cell Genet 81:222–8, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsuchiya KD, Opheim KE, Hannibal MC, Hing AV, Glass IA, Raff ML, Norwood T, Torchia BA. Unexpected structural complexity of supernumerary marker chromosomes characterized by microarray comparative genomic hybridization. Mol Cytogenet 1:7–18, 2008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Volpe P, Buonadonna AL, Campobasso G, DiCarlo A, Stanziano A, Gentile M. Cat-eye syndrome in a fetus with increased nuchal translucency: three dimensional ultrasound and echocardiographic evaluation of the fetal phenotype. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 24(4):485–7, 2004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosias PPR, Sijstermans JMJ, Theunissen PMVM, Pulles-Heintzberger CFM, De Die-Smulders CEM, Engelen JJM, Van Der Meer SB. Phenotipic variability of the Cat eye syndrome. Case report and review of literature. Genet Counsel 12;273–82, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nakamura-Pereira M, Carneiro do Cima L, Llerena JC, Guerra FAR, Peixoto-Filho FM. Sonographic Findings in a Case of Tetrasomy 9p Associated with Increased Nuchal Translucency and Dandy-Walker Malformation. J Clin Ultrasound 37(8): 47 1–4, 2009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tihy F, Lemyre E, Dallaire L, Lemieux N. Supernumerary Chromosome Inherited From a Maternal Balanced Translocation Leading to Pure Trisomy 9p. Amer J Med Genet 91:383–6, 2000.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloveras E, Perez C, Sole F, Two cases of tetrasomy 9p syndrome with tissue limited mosaicism. Am J Med Genet A 124:402, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Napoleone RM, Varela M, Andersson HC. Complex congenital heart malformations in mosaic tetrasomy 8p: case report and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet 73:330–3, 1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson WP, Binkert F, Gine R, Vazquez C, Müller W, Rosenkranz W, Schinzel A: Clinical and molecular analysis of five inv dup(15) patients. Eur J Hum Genet 1:37–50, 1993.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nietzel A, Albrecht B, Starke H, Heller A, Gillessen-Kaesbach G, Claussen U, Liehr T: Partial hexasomy 15pter→15q13 including SNRPN and D15S10: first molecular cytogenetically proven case report. J Med Genet 40 E28:1–4, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bartsch O, Loitzsch A, Kozlowski P, Mazauric ML, Hickmann G. Forty-two supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMCs) in 43 273 prenatal samples: chromosomal distribution, clinical findings, and UPD studies. Eur J Hum Genet 13(11):1192–204, 2005.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barber J. Directly transmitted unbalanced chromosome abnormalities and euchromatic variants. J Med Genet 42:609–29, 2005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez R, Liehr T, Martinez-Fernandez ML, Lara A, Torres A, Martinez-Frias ML. A new small supernumerary marker chromosome, generating mosaic pure trisomy 16q11.1-q12.1 in a healthy man. Mol Cytogenet 1:4–7, 2008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Starke H, Mitulla B, Nietzel A, Heller A, Beensen V, Grosswendt G, Claussen U, von Eggeling F, Liehr T. First case of trisomy 21 accompanied by an additional der(4)(:p11→q11:) plus partial uniparental disomy 4p15-16. Am J Med Genet 116A:26–30, 2003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwartz S, Depinet TW, Leana-Cox J, Isada NB, Karson EM, Park VM, Pasztor LM, Sheppard LC, Stallard R, Wolff DJ, Zinn AB, Zurcher VL, Zackowski JL. Sex chromosome markers: characterization using fluorescence in situ hybridization and review of the literature. Am J Med Genet 71:1–7, 1997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Migeon BR, Luo S, Stasiowski BA, Jani M, Axelman J, Van Dyke DL, Weiss L, Jacobs PA, Yang-Feng TL, Wiley JE. Deficient transcription of XIST from tiny ring X chromosomes in females with severe phenotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:12025–29, 1993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotzot D. Review and meta-analysis of systematic searches for uniparental disomy (UPD) other than UPD 15. Am J Med Genet 111:366–75, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shaffer LG, Agan N, Goldberg JD, Ledbetter DH, Longshore JW, Cassidy SB. American College of Medical Genetics statement of diagnostic testing for uniparental disomy. Genet Med 3: 206–11, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ledbetter DH, Engel E. Uniparental disomy in humans: development of an imprinting map and its implications for prenatal diagnosis. Hum Mol Genet 4 Spec No: 1757–64, 1995.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salafsky IS, MacGregor SN, Claussen U, von Eggeling F. Maternal UPD 20 in an infant from a pregnancy with mosaic trisomy 20. Prenat Diagn 21:860–3, 2001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roberts S, Maggouta F, Thompson R, Price S, Thomas S. A patient with a supernumerary marker chromosome (15), Angelman syndrome, and uniparental disomy resulting from paternal meiosis II non-disjunction. J Med Genet 39:E9, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Chudoba I, Franke Y, Senger G, Sauerbrei G, Demuth S, Beensen V, Neumann A, Hansmann I, Claussen U. Maternal UPD 20 in a hyperactive child with severe growth retardation. Eur J Hum Genet 7:533–40, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Von Eggeling F, Hoppe C, Bartz U, Starke H, Houge G, Claussen U, Ernst G, Kotzot D, Liehr T. Maternal uniparental disomy 12 in a healthy girl with a 47,XX,+der(12)(:p11→q11:)/46,XX karyotype. J Med Genet 39:519–21, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nietzel A, Rocchi M, Starke H, Heller A, Fiedler W, Wlodarska I, Loncarevic IF, Beensen V, Claussen U, Liehr T. A new multicolor-FISH approach for the characterization of marker chromosomes: centromere-specific multicolor-FISH (cenM-FISH). Hum Genet 108:199–204, 2001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy B, Jalal SM, Dunn TM, Warburton PE, Tonk VS, Hirschhorn K, Lockhart LH, Hughes T, Velagaleti GV. Unique case of mosaicism involving two morphologically similar marker chromosomes of different centric origin in a patient with developmental delay. Am J Med Genet 108:198–204, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schrock E, du Manoir S, Veldman T. Multicolor spectral karyotyping of human chromosomes. Science 273:494–7, 1996.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haddad BR, Schröck E, Meck J, Cowan J, Young H, Ferguson-Smith MA, du Manoir S, Ried T. Identification of de novo chromosomal markers and derivatives by spectral karyotyping. Hum Genet 103:619–25, 1998.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Starke H, Schreyer I, Kähler C, Fiedler W, Beensen V, Heller A, Nietzel A, Claussen U, Liehr T: Molecular cytogenetic characterization of a prenatally detected supernumerary minute marker chromosome 8. Prenat Diagn 19:1169–74, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weise A, Starke H, Heller A, Tönnies H, Volleth M, Stumm M, Senger G, Nietzel A, Claussen U, Liehr T: Chromosome 2 aberrations in clinical cases characterised by high resolution multicolour banding and region specific FISH probes. J Med Genet 39:434–9, 2002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Backx L, Van Esch H, Melotte C. Array painting using microdissected chromosomes to map chromosomal breakpoints. Cytogenet Genome Res 116:158–66, 2007.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pietrzak J, Mrasek K, Obersztyn E. Molecular cytogenetic characterization of eight small supernumerary marker chromosomes originating from chromosomes 2, 4, 8, 18, and 21 in three patients. J Appl Genet 48:167–75, 2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manolakos E, Kefalas K, Neroutsou R, Lagou M, Kosyakova N, Ewers E, Ziegler M, Weise A, Tsoplou P, Rapti SM, Papouldis I, Anastasakis E, Garas A, Sotiriou S, Eleftheriades M, Peitsidis P, Malathrakis D, Thomaidis L, Kitsos G, Orru S, Liehr T, Petersen MD, Kitsiou-Tzeli S. Characterization of 23 small supernumerary marker chromosomes detected at prenatal diagnosis: the value of fluorescence in situ hybridization. Mol Med Rep 3:1015–22, 2010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hastings RJ, Nisbet DL, Waters K, Spencer T, Chitty LS. Prenatal detection of extra structurally abnormal chromosomes (ESACs): new cases and a review of the literature. Prenat Diagn 19:436–45, 1999.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar