You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 47, Issue 5
  • Partial 7q11.23 deletions further implicate GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 as the main genes responsible for the Williams–Beuren syndrome neurocognitive profile

Article Text

Article menu
Original article
Partial 7q11.23 deletions further implicate GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 as the main genes responsible for the Williams–Beuren syndrome neurocognitive profile
  1. A Antonell1,
  2. M Del Campo1,2,
  3. L F Magano1,
  4. L Kaufmann3,4,
  5. J Martínez de la Iglesia5,
  6. F Gallastegui1,
  7. R Flores1,
  8. U Schweigmann6,
  9. C Fauth7,
  10. D Kotzot7,
  11. L A Pérez-Jurado1,2
  1. 1Unitat de Genètica, Departament de Ciències Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, and CIBER de enfermedades raras (CIBERER), Barcelona, Spain
  2. 2Programa de Medicina Molecular i Genètica, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
  3. 3Clinical Department of Pediatrics IV, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  4. 4Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
  5. 5Centro de Salud Lucano, Córdoba, Spain
  6. 6Clinical Department of Pediatrics I, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  7. 7Division of Clinical Genetics, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  1. Correspondence to Luis A Pérez-Jurado, Unitat de Genètica, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Parc de Recerca Biomèdica de Barcelona (PRBB), C/Dr Aiguader, 88, Barcelona 08003, Spain; luis.perez{at}upf.edu

Abstract

Background Williams–Beuren syndrome (WBS) is a developmental disorder with multisystemic manifestations mainly characterised by vascular stenoses, distinctive craniofacial features, mental retardation with a characteristic neurocognitive profile, and some endocrine and connective tissue abnormalities, caused by a recurrent deletion of 1.55 Mb including 26–28 genes at chromosomal region 7q11.23. The analysis of clinical–molecular correlations in a few reported atypical patients has been useful to propose several deleted genes as main contributors to specific aspects of the WBS phenotype.

Patients and methods Two additional families with partial phenotypes and atypical 7q11.23 deletions were studied. Deletions were precisely defined at the nucleotide level, and the expression levels of some affected and flanking genes were assessed in lymphoblastoid cell lines.

Results Affected individuals presented variable cardiovascular and connective tissue manifestations, subtle craniofacial features, normal visuospatial construction abilities with low average IQ and no endocrine abnormalities. The deletion in family NW1 encompassed 817 kb with 11 genes (CLDN3–GTF2IRD1), and 610 kb with 14 genes (VPS37D–RFC2) in family NW2. All deleted genes in typical and atypical deletions revealed low expression levels in lymphoblastoid cell lines, except for GTF2IRD1. CLIP2 was also underexpressed in all patients despite being outside the deletion in NW2, while no other flanking non-deleted gene showed significantly different expression compared to controls.

Conclusions Along with previously reported cases, clinical–molecular correlations in these two families further confirm that the functional hemizygosity for the GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 genes is the main cause of the neurocognitive profile and some aspects of the gestalt phenotype of WBS.

  • Williams–Beuren syndrome (WBS)
  • partial deletion
  • visuospatial construction
  • mental retardation
  • genetics
  • clinical genetics
  • cytogenetics
  • molecular genetics
  • visual development

https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2009.071712

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Williams–Beuren syndrome (WBS, Mendelian Inheritance in Man 194050) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder with a prevalence of 1/7500 to 1/15 000 live births. WBS individuals present with typical dysmorphic features, mild to moderate mental retardation and a characteristic cognitive profile that includes relatively preserved verbal skills but very deficient visuospatial abilities. They also have characteristic personality traits, such as preferring the company of adults to their peers and lacking shyness or fear with strangers. Most of them have short stature, cardiovascular abnormalities (typically supravalvular aortic stenosis (SVAS) and peripheral pulmonary stenosis (PPS)), hyperacusis, transient infantile hypercalcaemia and glucose intolerance as adults.1–4 WBS is caused in most cases by a 1.55- to 1.83-Mb deletion at chromosomal region 7q11.23, including 26–28 annotated genes depending on the deletion breakpoint.5–13 Similar-sized deletions occur in a recurrent manner and with a relatively high mutation rate due to the regional genomic architecture with flanking segmental duplications that predispose to non-allelic meiotic recombination.14 However, atypical rearrangements are non-recurrent in general and only account for 2% to 3% of cases.

    The first gene mapped to the WBS deleted interval that was linked to a specific phenotype was the gene coding for elastin (ELN). Deletion, disruption or mutation of ELN causes the cardiovascular and connective tissue phenotype of WBS, including SVAS.15–18 A few atypical patients with deletions that do not span the entire WBS region have been reported so far. Clinical–molecular correlations in these patients provide a unique opportunity to investigate the individual contribution of genes within the hemizygous interval to the WBS phenotype.15 19–30 Based on two families presenting with cardiovascular manifestations and partial features of the WBS cognitive profile associated with small deletions involving only ELN and the LIM kinase-1 coding gene (LIMK1), hemizygosity of LIMK1 was proposed as a contributing factor to impaired visuospatial constructive cognition in WBS.19 However, this claim is not consistent with the finding on different patients with similar or larger heterozygous deletions, including LIMK1, who also showed SVAS but no facial gestalt and no cognitive deficits, lacking the typical spatial and constructive impairment on repeated testing.20 21 In addition, several patients with deletions spanning from around the centromeric common breakpoint of the WBS typical deletion to near the CLIP2 gene have been described in individuals presenting with mild or no mental retardation, preserved visuospatial cognition and mild facial anomalies.22–25 30 This would imply that genes affected by deletions other than ELN (from NSUN5 to EIFH4) appear to contribute modestly to the WBS phenotype and little to neurocognition. A patient with typical facial features without the typical neurocognitive profile, only mild visuospatial construction deficit, was found to have a similar deletion but with the telomeric breakpoint within GTF2IRD1.27 Moreover, five families with deletions spanning almost the entire interval (from FZD9 to GTF2IRD1) had visuospatial constructive cognition impairment but no global mental retardation.26 The description of two patients with the full WBS phenotype who have deletions from ELN to GTF2I supports the hypothesis that the genes mainly responsible for abnormal cognition map to the telomeric interval of the deletion (CLIP2, GTF2IRD1 and GTF2I).28 29 Atypical deletions that span part of the WBS critical region extending towards the telomere or centromere have also been reported in patients with more complex phenotypes.31–33

    Despite these relatively consistent clinical–molecular correlations, the number of patients with atypical deletions is rather small, and detailed deletion mapping at the sequence level and expression data of deleted and flanking genes are missing in most reported cases. Other features of the WBS phenotype, such as the metabolic abnormalities, have not been associated with specific genes. Here, we report on two new families with fully characterised atypical 7q11.23 deletions and partial phenotypes. The combination of this information with the already published atypical deletion cases allows us to further refine the genotype–phenotype correlations in WBS patients.

    Materials and methods

    Subjects/medical evaluation

    Patients were initially ascertained in the Centro de Salud Azahara, Córdoba, Spain (family NW1), and in the Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Austria (family NW2). In addition to a complete medical check-up following the standard protocol for WBS patients, intellectual performance of the adults in both families was evaluated using the WAIS III or WIE (Spanish and German versions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale),34 and visuospatial skills were tested using the block design subtest of WAIS III or WIE, developmental test of visual–motor integration and Rey visual design learning test.21 Other abilities were also evaluated, such as attention, memory, executive functions, fine-motor coordination and calculation.35 36 Infants in the NW1 family were evaluated using the Denver developmental scale.

    Sample preparation

    Blood samples were obtained from patients and available first-degree relatives under informed consent approved by the institutional review board. Genomic DNA was extracted directly from peripheral blood using the PureGene kit (Gentra Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Epstein–Barr virus-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) were established from an affected individual from each family (individual NW1 III.4 and individual NW2 II.1). We also used LCLs from four individuals with WBS and typical deletions, as well as several Spanish unrelated individuals as controls. LCLs were grown in RPMI 1640 medium (GIBCO, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California, USA) with 10% foetal calf serum and antibiotics (100 units/mL penicillin and 100 μg/mL streptomycin) at 37°C with 5% CO2.

    Genomic DNA and total RNA were extracted from each cell line with the PureGene kit (Gentra Systems) and with TRIZOL reagent (Invitrogen), respectively, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The concentration and quality of all DNA and RNA samples was checked using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, California, USA). Total RNA was converted to cDNA using SuperScript II (Invitrogen) reverse transcription primed with random hexamers.

    Multiple-ligation probe amplification and microsatellite analyses

    A custom-made multiple-ligation probe amplification (MLPA) panel, with specific oligonucleotide probes for genes located in the commonly deleted interval and flanking regions, was designed (Supplementary table 1). All gene probes (n=16) were tested in a single assay using 150 ng of genomic DNA. The resulting fragments were separated by capillary electrophoresis in a sequencer (ABIPrism 3100, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California, USA ). Samples were analysed by visual examination of the peak profiles and by exporting the peak heights to an Excel sheet with data calculation as previously described.37

    PCR analyses of single-copy and multiple-copy microsatellites mapping to the 7q11.23 region were also used to define the parental origin of the rearrangement. PCR conditions and oligonucleotide primers were as previously described in detail.5

    Comparative genomic hybridisation in microarrays and junction fragment mapping

    Microarray comparative genomic hybridisation analysis was carried out using the microarray analysis platform of NimbleGen Technologies (Roche NimbleGen, Madison, Wisconsin, USA). Patient and reference genomic DNA samples were independently labelled with fluorescent dyes, cohybridised to a NimblenGen Human Chromosome 7 Tiling Array. Analysis of microarray data was performed as described by the manufacturers.38 For each spot on the array, log 2 ratios of the Cy3-labelled test sample versus the Cy5 reference sample were calculated. Corrected ratios above 0.2 and below −0.2 were considered as deletion or gain. Window averaging was performed with 4000 base pairs (bp), 8000 bp and 20 000 bp, and the region of interest was visually screened with SignalMap v.1.9 from NimbleGen. Based on the information obtained, we designed PCR primers to amplify the deletion junction fragment (Supplementary table 2), using the Expand Long Template Taq polymerase (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) and standard conditions. Sequencing of the PCR product was performed in an ABI 7900 HT sequencer (Applied Biosystems) with Big Dye 3.1 kit.

    Real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR and data analysis

    We used UPL probes (Roche) and TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix 2X (Applied Biosystems) or SYBR green master mix. Primers and probes were designed using the ProbeFinder software version 2.34 from Roche, with default parameters. In all cases, oligonucleotide primers were designed to span across an intron. We designed an assay for 10 genes (primers available on Supplementary table 2).

    Two genes were selected as reference for normalisation on the basis of their stability with regard to expression levels in LCLs, RAD51L1 and AGPAT1. Real-time PCR reactions were set up in a 10 μl volume in a 384-well plate with three replicates per sample. All PCR products were run in an ABI 7900 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems) with the following conditions: 50°C for 2 min, 95°C for 10 min and 40 cycles of 95°C 15 s/60°C for 1 min. Raw data were obtained using SDS 2.1 (Applied Biosystems). Subsequent assay efficiency calculations and measurements of relative expression were carried out in Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA), applying the standard curve method. Expression values obtained from individual samples were normalised against a pool of cDNA made of five control samples, and were plotted against the average values obtained from controls (n=5) and WBS individuals (n=4). A t test comparison was performed to define whether the differences found between WBS individuals and controls were statistically significant.

    Results

    Clinical description

    Family NW1

    At least eight patients from a three-generation family presented with some craniofacial features reminiscent of WBS (figure 1), cardiovascular problems of variable severity, mostly SVAS, and additional connective tissue problems, as well as mild cognitive deficits.39 Anthropometric parameters and growth charts were normal in all affected individuals and no other relevant clinical manifestations related to WBS were present. Specifically, no endocrine abnormalities of calcium and glucose metabolism were detected on repeated testing, including normal glucose overload test in women during pregnancy. The grandmother (NW1 I.2) died at 35 years of age; her sudden death was of cardiovascular origin. Two other family members, child NW1 III.4 and his uncle (NW1 II.5), also died suddenly with cardiac arrest at 4 and 15 years of age, respectively. The family lived in a remarkably poor social and educational setting. Detailed clinical description of the affected individuals who were completely examined is on table 1.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Pictures of some affected members and pedigree of the two families studied. (A) family NW1 and (B) family NW2. In family NW1, there are several affected individuals in three generations with similar phenotype except for incomplete penetrance of supravalvular aortic stenosis. In family NW2, the deletion occurred de novo in individual II.1, and the proband (III.1) died at 4 months due to cardiovascular problems. Individuals in the pictures provided consent for publication.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Clinical characteristics of atypical patients in comparison with WBS patients

    Neuropsychological testing was performed on patients NW1 II.4 and II.3. They had a full-scale IQ of 70 and 80, a verbal IQ of 73 and 81, and a performance IQ of 70 and 83, respectively (figure 2). In both cases, culturally influenced items showed extremely poor results, suggesting that these results are influenced by the marginal social milieu. Moreover, fatigue and distraction due to the presence of her newborn child could have affected results in patient NW1 II.4, obtaining a lower punctuation than her real possibilities, since she is autonomous in a familial and social context. The results in all visuospatial construction tasks were strictly normal in both sisters—that is, close to average. NW1 III.4 was evaluated at 18 months of age. He showed a normal psychomotor development and was functioning at the appropriate age level in all tasks according to the Denver developmental scale.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Performance on neuropsychological background tasks on the German and Spanish versions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale on patients NW1 II.4 (light grey) and NW2 II.1 (dark grey). Please note that for the sake of simplicity, all test scores were converted into z-scores (mean 0 (SD 1)) and, consequently, average performance is reflected by z-scores between −1 and 1. Thus, a z-score below −1 reflects deficiencies (defined as 1 SD below age norm).

    Family NW2

    This two-generation family was ascertained after the diagnosis of a newborn baby with severe SVAS. The child died at 4 months of age due to complications following cardiac surgery for SVAS. The mother had normal cardiac evaluation by echocardiography and displayed only minor facial features of WBS at age 30 years, as well as her child at the moment of examination (figure 1). Like in family NW1, no metabolic abnormalities were detected in NW2 II.1, including normal glucose overload test during pregnancy. Her neuropsychological testing revealed a discrepancy between verbal IQ (below average range) and performance IQ (low average range), with a full-scale IQ slightly below the average range. Moreover, the index scales derived from the IQ assessment disclosed average performance in three out of four indices: working memory, perceptual organisation and language comprehension. Slightly subaverage performance was observed in the index scale measuring information-processing speed (figure 2). Importantly, performance on neuropsychological background tasks was average with respect to tasks tapping attention, learning and memory, executive functions, fine-motor coordination and visuospatial abilities (Supplementary table 3). However, consistent with the literature,21 patient NW2 II.1 experienced circumscribed difficulties on a rather easy calculation test that was designed for brain-damaged patients; specifically, she encountered severe difficulties to solve written multiplications. Detailed clinical description is on table 1.

    Identification and molecular characterisation of the deletions

    Family NW1

    Affected family members revealed a heterozygous deletion, including the MLPA probes for the genes STX1A, LIMK1, EIF4H, RFC2, CLIP2 and GTF2IRD1, while control genes outside this region showed a normal dose. Microsatellite analysis revealed a hemizygous deletion of markers ELN I1 and GTF2IRD1-CAn, while markers D7S1870, CR16T and AFMb055×e5 showed biparental inheritance. Analysis with the chromosome 7 tiling microarray from NimbleGen allowed us to refine the deletion between genes ABHD11 and CLDN3 in the proximal breakpoint and within the GTF2IRD1 gene in the distal breakpoint. We designed primers to amplify and sequence the junction fragment in all affected individuals from whom samples were available. The deletion was 817 906 bp in size, with breakpoints located at chromosomal 7 locations 72 803 709 bp (proximal breakpoint) and 73 621 615 bp (distal breakpoint), based on human genome build 36. The proximal or centromeric breakpoint was mapped to an AluSq element, while the distal or telomeric breakpoint is found in a Mammalian-wide Interspersed Repeat (MIR) element (figure 3).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Molecular characterisation of the atypical deletions. Top, schematic representation of the 7q11.23 chromosomal region, with single copy genes (black line) and segmental duplications (SDs; arrows). Deletion breakpoints of both atypical deletions are marked with a purple rhombus. The microsatellites and MLPA (multiple-ligation amplification probe) probes analysed are shown below. (A) Mapping of deletion breakpoint by array comparative genomic hybridisation (NimbleGen Chromosome 7 Tiling Array). (B) PCR amplification of deletion junction fragments with the presence of repetitive elements.

    Family NW2

    The proband and his mother showed a hemizygous deletion of the MLPA probes for the genes WBSCR22, STX1A, LIMK1, EIF4H and RFC2, while gene probes outside this region showed a normal diploid dose. The microsatellites CR16T, WS4.5 and D7S613 showed a single allele and lack of maternal inheritance in the proband and his mother, while the maternal grandparents were heterozygous. Haplotype data revealed that the deletion had occurred de novo in the mother, in her maternally inherited chromosome. By high-resolution microarrays, the proximal deletion breakpoint was mapped inside the VPS37D gene and the distal breakpoint 12 kb upstream the CLIP2 gene transcription initiation site. We also amplified and sequenced the specific deletion junction fragment in both patients to precisely define the breakpoints. The deletion was 610 233 bp in size, with breakpoints at chromosomal locations 72 719 488 (proximal breakpoint) and 73 329 721 (distal breakpoint) of chromosome 7. Both breakpoints fell within the AluY sequence elements (figure 3).

    Expression profile of deleted and flanking genes in the 7q11.23 region

    To define dosage-sensitive genes in the deleted and flanking regions, we quantified the gene expression in LCLs by real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. We compared gene expression levels in our two atypical WBS patients with the common deletion (n=4) and controls (n=5). We analysed three genes located in the 1 Mb region flanking the common WBS deletion, AUTS2 (upstream) and WBSCR16 and HIP1 (downstream), outside of the deletion in all cases. None of these genes showed a significant reduction on its expression levels with respect to controls. BAZ1B, TBL2 and GTF2I (deleted in WBS patients but not in any of our two families) showed a reduction in its expression in WBS patients with respect to controls, but not in our patients, as expected. We also analysed two genes that comprised the deleted interval in both patients (LIMK1 and RFC2) and two genes deleted only in family NW1 but not in family NW2 (CLIP2 and GTF2IRD1). LIMK1 and RFC2 presented a decrease in its expression in our patients and in WBS patients. CLIP2 also showed a lower expression in all WBS patients and both our patients, despite not being deleted in family NW2. Given that the CLIP2 gene transcription initiation point is presumably located 12 kb downstream of the distal deletion breakpoint, its underexpression could be due to the deletion of a cis regulatory element or a positional effect. In contrast, we did not find a differential expression of the GTF2IRD1 gene between WBS patients and controls, as reported elsewhere,40 and its expression was also normal in our cases. See figure 4 and Supplementary table 4 for details.

    Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Relative expression levels (RELs) of relevant genes in lymphoblastoid cell lines of four WBS patients, six controls and two individuals with atypical deletions, NW1 III.4 (black triangle) and NW2 II.1 (black square). REL boxplots are shown for 10 genes, 3 flanking the commonly deleted region (A, centromeric; I and J, telomeric) and 7 located in the commonly deleted interval (B–H). **p<0.01 and ***p<0.001, t test. No data were available for three genes in NW1 III.4 due to technical problems.

    Discussion

    Molecular characterisation of partial deletions: rearrangement mechanism

    We have studied two new families with atypical deletions of the WBS region in 7q11.23 that are associated with partial WBS phenotypes. The deletion in family NW1 encompasses 817 kb including 11 genes (CLDN3-GTF2IRD1), while the deletion of family NW2 is 610 kb in length including 14 genes (VPS37D-RFC2) but functionally also affecting the next distal gene, CLIP2. It is worth noting that the GTF2IRD1 gene, one of the few genes differentially deleted in the two atypical deletions, does not show any differential expression when comparing LCLs from patients and controls, as previously reported.40 However, its expression could still be different in other tissues or in the developmental stages between WBS patients and controls, as already reported in skin fibroblasts.40

    At the sequence level, we have precisely defined the deletion junction fragments, and we have found that the regions implicated in the rearrangement in both families contained repetitive elements. We observed in family NW1 an AluSq and a MIR element, whereas in family NW2 both breakpoints were within AluY elements. Alu sequences are thought to be frequently involved in germline and somatic genomic rearrangements.41 However, given the low level of sequence similarity between the deletion breakpoints, the most likely mechanism leading to the rearrangements is non-homologous end joining or fork stalling and template switching.42 While WBS deletions occur in large regions of high homology with specific mechanisms of abnormal chromosomal pairing and exchange, these non-recurrent deletions are likely random events that could be facilitated by other repetitive elements of the human genome.

    Clinical–molecular correlations

    Clinically, family NW1 presented with some craniofacial features of WBS, a cardiovascular phenotype with incomplete penetrance, outgoing personality, learning problems and borderline IQ, but no visuospatial constructive impairment. Similarly, family NW2 presented severe SVAS in only one of the two affected members (incomplete penetrance) and normal visuospatial constructive cognition along with slightly subaverage general intellectual abilities. Therefore, clinical–molecular comparisons of our patients with respect to the WBS individuals further reinforce that LIMK1 deletion alone would not be sufficient to cause the impairment of visuospatial and construction abilities as once proposed,20 and that the deletion of GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 may contribute to some of the craniofacial features, the global intellectual deficit and some aspects of the cognitive profile, such as visuospatial constructive cognition. It is worth noting that patients of the NW1 family present a deletion of GTF2IRD1 but not of GTF2I, allowing the dissection of their individual contribution to visuospatial construction deficit, personality and facial features. Our data confirm that hemizigosity for GTF2IRD1 alone is not sufficient to cause the visuospatial construction deficit but may contribute to the hypersociable personality; the contrary was observed and hypothesised in a patient with a similar deletion breakpoint on the telomeric end.27 (figure 5) In addition, some other features absent in our patients and highly prevalent in WBS, such as impaired glucose tolerance and silent diabetes that is present in 75% of adult WBS individuals,4 might be caused by differentially deleted genes, including GTF2I and GTF2IRD1, and all the genes centromeric to VPS37D. An excellent candidate for this metabolic phenotype is the MLXIPL gene, coding for the carbohydrate response element-binding protein.43 Recently, mouse models that replicate the human molecular deletion and mice with half of the region deleted have been reported.44 These partial-deletion mice replicate crucial aspects of the human disorder and serve to identify genes and gene networks contributing to the multisystemic and neurodevelopmental abnormalities of WBS.

    Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Typical and atypical deletions of the 7q11.23 region reported to date with respect to the transcript map of the Williams–Beuren syndrome (WBS) critical region. Genes are represented by yellow boxes, and arrows indicate segmental duplications flanking the deleted region (block A in yellow and block B in red). The extent of the deletion observed in classic WBS patients (1.55 and 1.84 deletions), as well as for the atypical deletions, is denoted by a dark line below the transcript map. Unclear deletions statuses are represented by dot lines. Patients' symbols and references are indicated on the right of the dark line. Clinical information in the box. +, present; +/−, ambiguous/borderline; −, not present; NA, not available.

    Contribution of the TFII-I family of transcription factors to the WBS cognitive profile

    Our patients add relevant information to the previously reported cases with partial deletions of the WBS locus, allowing the definition of a more precise phenotypic map of the region based on clinical–molecular correlations (figure 5). The existence of a critical region responsible for the cognitive profile, which includes the GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 genes, is becoming more evident. These genes are always deleted in WBS patients. It is worth noting that depending on the deletion breakpoint in classic WBS patients, two genes are not always deleted and could contribute to the phenotypic variability—GTF2IRD2 and NCF1. NCF1, coding for the p47phox subunit of the NADPH oxidase complex, has already been defined as a modifier for the risk of hypertension in WBS.6 GTF2I, GTF2IRD1 and GTF2IRD2 are members of the TFII-I family of proteins, characterised by the presence of multiple helix–loop–helix-like novel domains known as I-repeats.45 GTF2I and GTF2IRD1 both contain multiple I-repeats. GTF2I contains both DNA and protein binding sites and is a multifunctional transcription factor that can bind enhancer (E-box) and core promoter (Inr) elements.45 Similarly, GTF2IRD1 is also thought to have a gene-regulatory function through direct DNA interactions.46 The GTF2IRD2 gene function is still unknown, although the presence of several features characteristic of regulatory factors, including two I-repeats, two leucine zippers and a single Cys-2/His-2 zinc finger, suggests that GTF2IRD2 has DNA-binding and protein-binding properties.12 47 Due to its location, variably included in the WBS deletions, GTF2IRD2 is also a candidate to modulate the effects of the other TFII-I-related genes on the WBS phenotype.

    To strongly define the genes responsible for each aspect of the WBS phenotype and their interacting effects, a detailed molecular characterisation of all patients with partial deletions should be accomplished, including expression data of regional genes along with a comprehensive and homogeneous clinical phenotyping. Moreover, mice models for specific genes of the region or deletion of half of the critical region deleted in patients are powerful tools for establishing genotype–phenotype correlations. The analysis of these two novel families along with all previously reported data strongly reinforce the knowledge that WBS is a real contiguous gene syndrome caused by the additive effects of haploinsufficiency for several genes in the 7q11.23 critical region. While ELN deletion is responsible for the cardiovascular phenotype, with NCF1 as a modifier for blood pressure, the TFII-I-related genes appear to be the major players for the neurocognitive profile, especially mental retardation and visuospatial impairment, as well as contributors to some craniofacial features of WBS.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank the patients and their families for their support. We also thank Ivon Cuscó for critical reading of the manuscript and Benjamí Rodríguez-Santiago for help in the elaboration of a figure. This work was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministries of Science and Education (SAF2004-6382) and Health (FISPI042016 and FISPI076832), and the VI Framework Programme of the European Commission (LSHG-CT-2006-037627).

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Mervis CB,
      2. Klein-Tasman BP
      . Williams syndrome: cognition, personality, and adaptive behavior. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2000;6:148–58.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Martens MA,
      2. Wilson SJ,
      3. Reutens DC
      . Research review: Williams syndrome: a critical review of the cognitive, behavioral, and neuroanatomical phenotype. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2008;49:576–608.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Pober BR,
      2. Johnson M,
      3. Urban Z
      . Mechanisms and treatment of cardiovascular disease in Williams–Beuren syndrome. J Clin Invest 2008;118:1606–15.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Cherniske EM,
      2. Carpenter TO,
      3. Klaiman C,
      4. Young E,
      5. Bregman J,
      6. Insogna K,
      7. Schultz RT,
      8. Pober BR
      . Multisystem study of 20 older adults with Williams syndrome. Am J Med Genet A 2004;131:255–64.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Bayes M,
      2. Magano LF,
      3. Rivera N,
      4. Flores R,
      5. Perez Jurado LA
      . Mutational mechanisms of Williams–Beuren syndrome deletions. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73:131–51.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Del Campo M,
      2. Antonell A,
      3. Magano LF,
      4. Muñoz FJ,
      5. Flores R,
      6. Bayés M,
      7. Pérez Jurado LA
      . Hemizygosity at the NCF1 gene in patients with Williams–Beuren syndrome decreases their risk of hypertension. Am J Hum Genet 2006;78:533–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Peoples R,
      2. Franke Y,
      3. Wang YK,
      4. Pérez-Jurado L,
      5. Paperna T,
      6. Cisco M,
      7. Francke U
      . A physical map, including a BAC/PAC clone contig, of the Williams–Beuren syndrome—deletion region at 7q11.23. Am J Hum Genet 2000;66:47–68.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. DeSilva U,
      2. Elnitski L,
      3. Idol JR,
      4. Doyle JL,
      5. Gan W,
      6. Thomas JW,
      7. Schwartz S,
      8. Dietrich NL,
      9. Beckstrom-Sternberg SM,
      10. McDowell JC,
      11. Blakesley RW,
      12. Bouffard GG,
      13. Thomas PJ,
      14. Touchman JW,
      15. Miller W,
      16. Green ED
      . Generation and comparative analysis of approximately 3.3 Mb of mouse genomic sequence orthologous to the region of human chromosome 7q11.23 implicated in Williams syndrome. Genome Res 2002;12:3–15.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Valero MC,
      2. de Luis O,
      3. Cruces J,
      4. Perez Jurado LA
      . Fine-scale comparative mapping of the human 7q11.23 region and the orthologous region on mouse chromosome 5G: the low-copy repeats that flank the Williams–Beuren syndrome deletion arose at breakpoint sites of an evolutionary inversion(s). Genomics 2000;69:1–13.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Merla G,
      2. Ucla C,
      3. Guipponi M,
      4. Reymond A
      . Identification of additional transcripts in the Williams–Beuren syndrome critical region. Hum Genet 2002;110:429–38.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Doll A,
      2. Grzeschik KH
      . Characterisation of two novel genes, WBSCR20 and WBSCR22, deleted in Williams–Beuren syndrome. Cytogenet Cell Genet 2001;95:20–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Makeyev AV,
      2. Erdenechimeg L,
      3. Mungunsukh O,
      4. Roth JJ,
      5. Enkhmandakh B,
      6. Ruddle FH,
      7. Bayarsaihan D
      . GTF2IRD2 is located in the Williams–Beuren syndrome critical region 7q11.23 and encodes a protein with two TFII-I-like helix-loop-helix repeats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:11052–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Micale L,
      2. Fusco C,
      3. Augello B,
      4. Napolitano LM,
      5. Dermitzakis ET,
      6. Meroni G,
      7. Merla G,
      8. Reymond A
      . Williams–Beuren syndrome TRIM50 encodes an E3 ubiquitin ligase. Eur J Hum Genet 2008;16:1038–49.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Antonell A,
      2. de Luis O,
      3. Domingo-Roura X,
      4. Perez-Jurado LA
      . Evolutionary mechanisms shaping the genomic structure of the Williams–Beuren syndrome chromosomal region at human 7q11.23. Genome Res 2005;15:1179–88.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Olson TM,
      2. Michels VV,
      3. Urban Z,
      4. Csiszar K,
      5. Christiano AM,
      6. Driscoll DJ,
      7. Feldt RH,
      8. Boyd CD,
      9. Thibodeau SN
      . A 30 kb deletion within the elastin gene results in familial supravalvular aortic stenosis. Hum Mol Genet 1995;4:1677–9.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Metcalfe K,
      2. Rucka AK,
      3. Smoot L,
      4. Hofstadler G,
      5. Tuzler G,
      6. McKeown P,
      7. Siu V,
      8. Rauch A,
      9. Dean J,
      10. Dennis N,
      11. Ellis I,
      12. Reardon W,
      13. Cytrynbaum C,
      14. Osborne L,
      15. Yates JR,
      16. Read AP,
      17. Donnai D,
      18. Tassabehji M
      . Elastin: mutational spectrum in supravalvular aortic stenosis. Eur J Hum Genet 2000;8:955–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Ewart AK,
      2. Morris CA,
      3. Atkinson D,
      4. Jin W,
      5. Sternes K,
      6. Spallone P,
      7. Stock AD,
      8. Leppert M,
      9. Keating MT
      . Hemizygosity at the elastin locus in a developmental disorder, Williams syndrome. Nat Genet 1993;5:11–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Curran ME,
      2. Atkinson DL,
      3. Ewart AK,
      4. Morris CA,
      5. Leppert MF,
      6. Keating MT
      . The elastin gene is disrupted by a translocation associated with supravalvular aortic stenosis. Cell 1993;73:159–68.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Frangiskakis JM,
      2. Ewart AK,
      3. Morris CA,
      4. Mervis CB,
      5. Bertrand J,
      6. Robinson BF,
      7. Klein BP,
      8. Ensing GJ,
      9. Everett LA,
      10. Green ED,
      11. Pröschel C,
      12. Gutowski NJ,
      13. Noble M,
      14. Atkinson DL,
      15. Odelberg SJ,
      16. Keating MT
      . LIM-kinase1 hemizygosity implicated in impaired visuospatial constructive cognition. Cell 1996;86:59–69.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Tassabehji M,
      2. Metcalfe K,
      3. Karmiloff-Smith A,
      4. Carette MJ,
      5. Grant J,
      6. Dennis N,
      7. Reardon W,
      8. Splitt M,
      9. Read AP,
      10. Donnai D
      . Williams syndrome: use of chromosomal microdeletions as a tool to dissect cognitive and physical phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet 1999;64:118–25.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Karmiloff-Smith A,
      2. Grant J,
      3. Ewing S,
      4. Carette MJ,
      5. Metcalfe K,
      6. Donnai D,
      7. Read AP,
      8. Tassabehji M
      . Using case study comparisons to explore genotype–phenotype correlations in Williams–Beuren syndrome. J Med Genet 2003;40:136–40.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Gagliardi C,
      2. Bonaglia MC,
      3. Selicorni A,
      4. Borgatti R,
      5. Giorda R
      . Unusual cognitive and behavioural profile in a Williams syndrome patient with atypical 7q11.23 deletion. J Med Genet 2003;40:526–30.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Ferrero GB,
      2. Howald C,
      3. Micale L,
      4. Biamino E,
      5. Augello B,
      6. Fusco C,
      7. Turturo MG,
      8. Forzano S,
      9. Reymond A,
      10. Merla G
      . An atypical 7q11.23 deletion in a normal IQ Williams–Beuren syndrome patient. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:33–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Howald C,
      2. Merla G,
      3. Digilio MC,
      4. Amenta S,
      5. Lyle R,
      6. Deutsch S,
      7. Choudhury U,
      8. Bottani A,
      9. Antonarakis SE,
      10. Fryssira H,
      11. Dallapiccola B,
      12. Reymond A
      . Two high throughput technologies to detect segmental aneuploidies identify new Williams–Beuren syndrome patients with atypical deletions. J Med Genet 2006;43:266–73.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Tassabehji M,
      2. Hammond P,
      3. Karmiloff-Smith A,
      4. Thompson P,
      5. Thorgeirsson SS,
      6. Durkin ME,
      7. Popescu NC,
      8. Hutton T,
      9. Metcalfe K,
      10. Rucka A,
      11. Stewart H,
      12. Read AP,
      13. Maconochie M,
      14. Donnai D
      . GTF2IRD1 in craniofacial development of humans and mice. Science 2005;310:1184–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Morris CA,
      2. Mervis CB,
      3. Hobart HH,
      4. Gregg RG,
      5. Bertrand J,
      6. Ensing GJ,
      7. Sommer A,
      8. Moore CA,
      9. Hopkin RJ,
      10. Spallone PA,
      11. Keating MT,
      12. Osborne L,
      13. Kimberley KW,
      14. Stock AD
      . GTF2I hemizygosity implicated in mental retardation in Williams syndrome: genotype-phenotype analysis of five families with deletions in the Williams syndrome region. Am J Med Genet A 2003;123A:45–59.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Dai L,
      2. Bellugi U,
      3. Chen XN,
      4. Pulst-Korenberg AM,
      5. Järvinen-Pasley A,
      6. Tirosh-Wagner T,
      7. Eis PS,
      8. Graham J,
      9. Mills D,
      10. Searcy Y,
      11. Korenberg JR
      . Is it Williams syndrome? GTF2IRD1 implicated in visual–spatial construction and GTF2I in sociability revealed by high resolution arrays. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:302–14.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Botta A,
      2. Novelli G,
      3. Mari A,
      4. Novelli A,
      5. Sabani M,
      6. Korenberg J,
      7. Osborne LR,
      8. Digilio MC,
      9. Giannotti A,
      10. Dallapiccola B
      . Detection of an atypical 7q11.23 deletion in Williams syndrome patients which does not include the STX1A and FZD3 genes. J Med Genet 1999;36:478–80.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Heller R,
      2. Rauch A,
      3. Luttgen S,
      4. Schroder B,
      5. Winterpacht A
      . Partial deletion of the critical 1.5 Mb interval in Williams–Beuren syndrome. J Med Genet 2003;40:e99.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. van Hagen JM,
      2. van der Geest JN,
      3. van der Giessen RS,
      4. Lagers-van Haselen GC,
      5. Eussen HJ,
      6. Gille JJ,
      7. Govaerts LC,
      8. Wouters CH,
      9. de Coo IF,
      10. Hoogenraad CC,
      11. Koekkoek SK,
      12. Frens MA,
      13. van Camp N,
      14. van der Linden A,
      15. Jansweijer MC,
      16. Thorgeirsson SS,
      17. De Zeeuw CI
      . Contribution of CYLN2 and GTF2IRD1 to neurological and cognitive symptoms in Williams syndrome. Neurobiol Dis 2007;26:112–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Tam E,
      2. Young EJ,
      3. Morris CA,
      4. Marshall CR,
      5. Loo W,
      6. Scherer SW,
      7. Mervis CB,
      8. Osborne LR
      . The common inversion of the Williams–Beuren syndrome region at 7q11.23 does not cause clinical symptoms. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:1797–806.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Edelmann L,
      2. Prosnitz A,
      3. Pardo S,
      4. Bhatt J,
      5. Cohen N,
      6. Lauriat T,
      7. Ouchanov L,
      8. González PJ,
      9. Manghi ER,
      10. Bondy P,
      11. Esquivel M,
      12. Monge S,
      13. Delgado MF,
      14. Splendore A,
      15. Francke U,
      16. Burton BK,
      17. McInnes LA
      . An atypical deletion of the Williams–Beuren syndrome interval implicates genes associated with defective visuospatial processing and autism. J Med Genet 2007;44:136–43.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Blyth M,
      2. Beal S,
      3. Huang S,
      4. Crolla J,
      5. Foulds N
      . A novel 2.43 Mb deletion of 7q11.22-q11.23. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:3206–10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Wechsler D
      . Wechsler adult intelligence scale. 3rd edn. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corp., 1997.
    35. ↵
      1. Strauss E,
      2. Sherman EMS,
      3. Spreen O
      . A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary. 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
    36. ↵
      1. Dellatolas G,
      2. Deloche G,
      3. Basso A,
      4. Claros-Salinas D
      . Assessment of calculation and number processing using the EC301 battery: cross-cultural normative data and application to left- and right-brain damaged patients. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2001;7:840–59.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Cuscó I,
      2. Medrano A,
      3. Gener B,
      4. Vilardell M,
      5. Gallastegui F,
      6. Villa O,
      7. González E,
      8. Rodríguez-Santiago B,
      9. Vilella E,
      10. Del Campo M,
      11. Pérez-Jurado LA
      . Autism-specific copy number variants further implicate the phosphatidylinositol signaling pathway and the glutamatergic synapse in the etiology of the disorder. Hum Mol Genet 2009;18:1795–804.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. McCormick MR,
      2. Selzer RR,
      3. Richmond TA
      . Methods in high-resolution, array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Methods Mol Biol 2007;381:189–211.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Onis Vilches MC,
      2. Rubio Cuadrado MV,
      3. Martinez de la Iglesia J,
      4. Lopez Granados A
      . William's syndrome. Report of a case with family involvement. Rev Clin Esp 1998;198:91–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Merla G,
      2. Howald C,
      3. Henrichsen CN,
      4. Lyle R,
      5. Wyss C,
      6. Zabot MT,
      7. Antonarakis SE,
      8. Reymond A
      . Submicroscopic deletion in patients with Williams–Beuren syndrome influences expression levels of the nonhemizygous flanking genes. Am J Hum Genet 2006;79:332–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Deininger PL,
      2. Batzer MA
      . Alu repeats and human disease. Mol Genet Metab 1999;67:183–93.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Lee JA,
      2. Carvalho CM,
      3. Lupski JR
      . A DNA replication mechanism for generating nonrecurrent rearrangements associated with genomic disorders. Cell 2007;131:1235–47.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Merla G,
      2. Howald C,
      3. Antonarakis SE,
      4. Reymond A
      . The subcellular localization of the ChoRE-binding protein, encoded by the Williams–Beuren syndrome critical region gene 14, is regulated by 14-3-3. Hum Mol Genet 2004;13:1505–14.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      1. Li HH,
      2. Roy M,
      3. Kuscuoglu U,
      4. Spencer CM,
      5. Halm B,
      6. Harrison KC,
      7. Bayle JH,
      8. Splendore A,
      9. Ding F,
      10. Meltzer LA,
      11. Wright E,
      12. Paylor R,
      13. Deisseroth K,
      14. Francke U
      . Induced chromosome deletions cause hypersociability and other features of Williams–Beuren syndrome in mice. EMBO Mol Med 2009;1:50–65.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. ↵
      1. Roy AL
      . Biochemistry and biology of the inducible multifunctional transcription factor TFII-I. Gene 2001;274:1–13.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Osborne LR,
      2. Campbell T,
      3. Daradich A,
      4. Scherer SW,
      5. Tsui LC
      . Identification of a putative transcription factor gene (WBSCR11) that is commonly deleted in Williams–Beuren syndrome. Genomics 1999;57:279–84.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Hinsley TA,
      2. Cunliffe P,
      3. Tipney HJ,
      4. Brass A,
      5. Tassabehji M
      . Comparison of TFII-I gene family members deleted in Williams–Beuren syndrome. Protein Sci 2004;13:2588–99.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Clinical Research Ethics Committee from IMIM/UPF/PRBB (http://www.imim.es/comitesetics/en_index.html).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.