Next Article in Journal
The Expanding Therapeutic Potential of Neuronal KCC2
Next Article in Special Issue
uPAR Knockout Results in a Deep Glycolytic and OXPHOS Reprogramming in Melanoma and Colon Carcinoma Cell Lines
Previous Article in Journal
Prevention of DNA Replication Stress by CHK1 Leads to Chemoresistance Despite a DNA Repair Defect in Homologous Recombination in Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Context-Dependent Strategies for Enhanced Genome Editing of Genodermatoses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 9
Issue 1
10.3390/cells9010239
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Applications of Genome Editing Technology in Research on Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders

by
Silvia Natsuko Akutsu
,
Kazumasa Fujita
,
Keita Tomioka
,
Tatsuo Miyamoto
* and
Shinya Matsuura
*
Department of Genetics and Cell Biology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 734-8553, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2020, 9(1), 239; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010239
Submission received: 23 December 2019 / Revised: 7 January 2020 / Accepted: 9 January 2020 / Published: 17 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genome Editing Systems, Methods, Techniques and Their Application)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chromosomal segregation errors in germ cells and early embryonic development underlie aneuploidies, which are numerical chromosomal abnormalities causing fetal absorption, developmental anomalies, and carcinogenesis. It has been considered that human aneuploidy disorders cannot be resolved by radical treatment. However, recent studies have demonstrated that aneuploidies can be rescued to a normal diploid state using genetic engineering in cultured cells. Here, we summarize a series of studies mainly applying genome editing to eliminate an extra copy of human chromosome 21, the cause of the most common constitutional aneuploidy disorder Down syndrome. We also present findings on induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming, which has been shown to be one of the most promising technologies for converting aneuploidies into normal diploidy without the risk of genetic alterations such as genome editing-mediated off-target effects.

1. Introduction

1.1. Human Genetic Aneuploidy Disorders

Eukaryotic cells have developed a surveillance mechanism to ensure accurate chromosomal segregation during cell division. Errors during meiosis or mitosis can generate daughter cells with an abnormal number of chromosomes, a phenomenon called “aneuploidy” (i.e., not euploidy). Aneuploid cells exhibit gain or loss of a whole chromosome, causing abnormalities in embryonic development and a predisposition to cancer [1,2,3].
The risk of embryonic aneuploidies leading to miscarriage or congenital disorders generally increases with maternal age [4,5,6,7]. The overall incidence of chromosomal anomalies in neonates is approximately one out of 160 births [8,9,10,11,12]. Monosomies (possessing only one chromosome of a pair) are basically deleterious due to the level of gene expression being insufficient for cell survival; most such cases, except for monosomy X, are thus embryonically lethal [13]. In contrast, live births occur for trisomies of chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y, owing to the smaller number of genes encoding proteins located on these chromosomes in comparison to the other autosomal chromosomes [14,15,16,17,18]. However, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 have severe phenotypic consequences, which are rarely compatible with long-term survival [19,20,21,22]. Here, we address genome editing technology as a potential therapy for aneuploidy disorders.

1.2. Autosomal Chromosomes

1.2.1. Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome)

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common trisomy disorder among live-born infants with aneuploidy. DS patients show a characteristic facial appearance, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), intellectual disability, and an increased risk of leukemia [23,24,25,26,27]. In general, the specific set of genes causing the clinical phenotypes in trisomy syndromes affected by the increase in chromosome copy number is largely unknown. However, it has been reported that three copies of the RUNX1, ETS2, and ERG genes on chromosome 21 interplay with somatic GATA1 mutations on the X chromosome to increase the risk of leukemia in DS. Interestingly, TALEN-mediated elimination of the GATA1 mutation in DS patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)restored the proper hematopoiesis even in the presence of trisomy 21 [28].

1.2.2. Trisomy 18 (Edwards Syndrome)

Trisomy 18 is the second most common trisomy among live-born infants with aneuploidy. Its features include IUGR, hypertonia, prominent occipital bone, small mouth, micrognathia, short sternal bone, horseshoe kidney, small pelvis, and clenched fists with second and fifth fingers overlapping [29,30,31].

1.2.3. Trisomy 13 (Patau Syndrome)

Trisomy 13 patients show clinical features due to an early defect in the development of the prechordal mesoderm, leading to midline malformations including holoprosencephaly, absence of the olfactory nerve and bulb, severe eye defects, deafness, and midline cleft lip and palate. In addition, IUGR, omphalocele, genitourinary anomalies, hemangiomas, and polydactyly often appear in these patients [32,33,34,35].

1.3. Sex Chromosomes

1.3.1. Turner Syndrome (45,X)

Although the autosomal monosomies are lethal, monosomy of the X chromosome underlying Turner syndrome can be associated with live birth and viability despite a high rate of fetal loss. This syndrome shows a type of hypergonadotropic hypogonadism characterized by a female phenotype, gonadal dysgenesis, and sexual immaturity [36]. Clinical features include intense intrauterine edema with nuchal edema, growth retardation, short stature, broad chest, no development of secondary sexual characteristics in adulthood, facial appearance of epicanthic folds, ocular hypertelorism, thick eyebrows, low implanted ears, micrognathia, low posterior hairline, and renal malformations [37,38,39].

1.3.2. Klinefelter Syndrome

Klinefelter syndrome is one of the most common forms of hypergonadotropic hypogonadism in men. It is due to the presence of one extra X chromosome (47,XXY) or, more rarely, two or three extra X chromosomes (48,XXXY or 49,XXXXY). Secondary sexual characteristics are poorly developed, and patients show small testicles associated with azoospermia/oligospermia, gynecomastia, and infertility because of lower levels of testosterone and hypogonadism [36,40]. Patients also exhibit a tall and thin stature, with long limbs and reduced muscle mass [41,42,43].
There are other aneuploidies (cited in Table 1) that are even rarer than those previously mentioned and have been described in some case reports in the literature [31,44,45,46,47,48]. Most of the other autosomal aneuploidies exhibit mosaicism, making them compatible with life, since full trisomy is lethal. The main clinical features of aneuploidy disorders include impairments of cognitive development and growth [2,49,50]. More than 30% of individuals with numerical chromosomal abnormalities have cardiac malformations [51,52,53,54].

1.4. Mosaic Variegated Aneuploidy (MVA)

The constitutional aneuploidy disorders described in Section 1.1. and Section 1.2. are pathologically based on stochastic chromosome mis-segregations in gametogenesis and early embryogenesis. In contrast, in patients carrying mutations (Mendelian inheritance) in the genes underlying proper chromosome segregation, the entire correction mechanism is compromised, generating a pool of cells with mosaic variegated aneuploidy (MVA) [55,56]. MVA is a rare autosomal recessive disorder that presents different sets of aneuploid somatic cells due to germline mutations in genes important for the surveillance of chromosomal segregation [57,58,59]. To date, MVA has been categorized into three types according to the causative genes.

1.4.1. MVA1 or MVA1 Syndrome

Premature chromatid separation (PCS)/MVA1 syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the BUB1B (15q15.1) gene [60,61,62]. This gene encodes BubR1 protein, a central player in the mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC). Insufficiency of BubR1 protein causes impaired SAC, chromosome alignment defects, and chromosome segregation errors characterized by the premature chromatid separation of all chromosomes and MVA generating monosomies, trisomies, and/or double trisomies for multiple different chromosomes. Patients are characterized by IUGR, microcephaly, uncontrollable seizures, mental retardation, Dandy–Walker anomaly, early onset of cataracts, polycystic kidney, and a strong predisposition for childhood cancers (Wilms tumor, rhabdomyosarcoma, or leukemia) [63,64,65,66,67,68,69].

1.4.2. MVA2

The CEP57(11q21) gene encoding a centrosomal 57 kDa protein required for microtubule attachment to centrosomes, chromosome misalignment, and multipolar spindles is the causative gene of MVA2 [70,71,72]. The clinical features of patients with MVA2 are IUGR, microcephaly, developmental delay, and mild rhizomelic shortening of the upper limbs. A predisposition for cancer has not been detected in MVA2 patients [73,74,75].

1.4.3. MVA3

TRIP13(5p15.33) encodes a protein involved in SAC, thyroid hormone receptor interactor 13, which works through inactivation of the MAD2 protein. Germline mutations of the TRIP13 gene cause MVA3 [76]. Cells from patients show a high frequency of premature chromatid separation, like in MVA1 patients. The clinical features are IUGR, microcephaly, developmental delay, mild dysmorphism, seizures, abnormal skin pigmentation, and a predisposition for Wilms tumor and leukemia [77,78].

2. Gene Targeting-Mediated Chromosome Elimination

The aneuploidy disorders have been considered to be irremediable. However, recent studies using genetic engineering have revealed the possibility of performing aneuploidy therapy in cultured cells. Here, we summarize some of the main studies aimed at eliminating an entire chromosome using the Cre/loxP system [79,80,81,82,83,84,85], the TKneo transgene for positive and negative antibiotic selection [86], CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated multiple cleavage [87,88], and zinc finger nuclease (ZFN)-mediated knock-in of the XIST gene to silence one copy of chromosome 21 [89] (cited in Table 2).

2.1. Cre/loxP System-Mediated Chromosome Elimination

A single loxP site contains two 13-bp inverted repeats flanking an asymmetric 8-bp core sequence recognized by Cre recombinase [90]. Integration of the inverted loxP into the chromosomes were performed by conventional gene targeting, CRISPR/Cas9 nickase system, and TALEN technology, respectively [82,83,91]. Chromosomes with inverted loxP sites can be converted to unstable dicentric and acentric chromosomes in a Cre recombinase-dependent manner (Figure 1). These unstable chromosomes will be excluded during cell division, thereby promoting elimination of the target chromosome with the inverted loxP sites (Figure 1A). Lewandoski et al. [83] first used this strategy to demonstrate the elimination of the Y chromosome in XY male mice in vivo. Male mice bearing a Y chromosome with inverted loxP sites were mated with female transgenic Cre mice to eliminate the Y chromosome during embryogenesis, thereby developing as XO female mice. Moreover, Matsumura et al. [85] applied a chromosome elimination cassette (CEC), featuring fluorescent-protein and puromycin resistance genes surrounded by inverted loxP sites into chromosome deletions in cultured cells in vitro. Mouse tetraploid (4n = 80,XXXY) ES cells fused with two diploid ES cells differentiated but did not proliferate [79,85]. The elimination of two copies of chromosome 6 tagged with CEC in the tetraploid ES cells enabled survival in an undifferentiated state and the capability of teratoma formation, implying that chromosome 6 including the Nanog gene is indispensable for the self-renewal and pluripotency of mouse ES cells.
To dissect the molecular pathology of chromosome 21-associated gene-dosage imbalance in Down syndrome, Sato et al. [82] used CEC cassette-tagged trisomy 21 HeLa cells to generate normal disomic cells (Figure 1A). A cassette of green fluorescent protein (GFP) and herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase (HSV-tk) genes surrounded by inverted loxP sites was integrated into one copy of chromosome 21 in the trisomy HeLa cells by homologous recombination following CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated DNA nicking. The CEC-tagged trisomy HeLa cell clones were positively selected by the GFP signal. Cre recombinase induced sister-chromatid recombination in the inverted loxP site-tagged chromosome to generate unstable dicentric and acentric chromosome 21. The disomy 21 HeLa cells in which the extra copy of chromosome 21 had been eliminated were negatively selected by the antiviral drug ganciclovir (GCV), which kills cells in the presence of thymidine kinase.

2.2. Conventional Gene-Targeting Mediated Dual Drug Selection Cassette Knock-In

Introduction of a gene cassette for positive and negative drug selection into one copy of chromosome 21 via a conventional gene-targeting method demonstrated the correction of trisomy to disomy in Down syndrome (DS) patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Li et al. [86] introduced the thymidine kinase and neomycin resistant (TKneo) transgene into one copy of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene exon 3 target locus on chromosome 21 in DS-iPSCs using adenovirus vector (AVV). The DS iPSC clones with the cassette were positively selected by G418 (neomycin) treatment at a rate of 0.14%. The disomy 21 DS-iPSC clones were negatively selected by GCV at a rate of ~10−4, thereby effectively generating normal disomic cells (Figure 1B). Trisomy 21 is known to disturb the endothelial differentiation to cause impaired angiogenesis in DS [92]. In the teratoma formation assay, the disomy 21 DS-iPSCs developed endothelial tubes normally [86].

2.3. Genome Editing Technology for Rescuing Trisomy In Vitro and In Vivo

2.3.1. Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN) Mediated the XIST Gene Knock-In to Silence an Extra Chromosome 21 in Down Syndrome Patient Cells

The XIST gene located on the human X chromosome exclusively inactivates one copy of the X chromosome in mammalian females (XX) as a natural mechanism to adjust the gene dosage between females and males [93]. The X chromosome inactivation is cytologically manifested as a condensed Barr body. In addition to the elimination of extra chromosomes, Jiang et al. [89] reported another potential chromosomal therapy for Down syndrome using a ZFN-mediated XIST gene knock-in technology. The ZFNs enabled the accurate and efficient insertion of the XIST gene into chromosome 21 in DS iPSCs. The rates of successful single, double, and triple knock-in of the XIST gene into the target locus in the DS-iPSCs were 87.7%, 10.8%, and 0.0%, respectively. The doxycycline-inducible full-length XIST transgene was introduced into the DYRK1A intron 1 locus on chromosome 21q22. The ZFN-mediated XIST transgene integration into the DYRK1A locus in two and three alleles occurred effectively, while the transgene insertion into only one allele was rare. Further studies are needed to develop genome editing technology for controlling the copy number of transgene insertion. In contrast, the doxycycline control component (rtTA) transgene was inserted into the AAVS1 safe harbor site on chromosome 19. The doxycycline-dependent XIST gene expression induced “chromosome 21 Barr body” to inactivate the extra chromosome 21 in DS-iPSCs (Figure 1C). Gene expression in the DS iPSCs was identical to that in the normal individual iPSCs. However, several genes on chromosome 21 escaped from the XIST-mediated inactivation to maintain the overdose transcript amounts of aneuploid cells. Recently, it was reported that trisomy 21 upregulates insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling to enhance the GATA1 expression aberrantly, thereby causing leukemia in DS. The XIST-mediated trisomy 21 silencing in DS patient-derived iPSCs restored the proper hematopoietic differentiation in vitro [94]. For clinical applications of this method, further improvements are required for the complete silencing of targeted chromosome 21.

2.3.2. CRISPR/Cas9 System to Introduce Multiple DNA Cleavages for Target Chromosome Elimination

To eliminate extra chromosomes, multiple guide RNAs of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for introducing DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) into the target site are designed for an entire region of the target chromosome [95,96,97,98,99]. Adikusuma et al. [88] used this strategy to delete the mouse Y chromosome in vitro and in vivo (Figure 1D). Guide RNAs corresponding to repetitive sequences (from 40 to 140 tandem repeats) of the centromere and long arm of chromosome Y were used in their study. Zuo et al. [87] also designed two other sgRNAs in repetitive elements of the Rbmy1a1 and Ssty2 genes of the mouse Y chromosome to generate XO mice and embryonic stem cells (ESCs) as Turner syndrome models with approximately 20% efficacy. In mESCs with human chromosome 14 (hChr14) established by the artificial chromosome transfer method, six sgRNAs targeting repetitive elements on the long arm of hChr14 were sufficient to achieve CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated hCh14 elimination. The elimination frequencies were around 10%. Interestingly, this strategy was applied to human cancer cell line HT-29 with four copies of chromosome 7 (hChr7 = 4) to reduce the copy number and to thereby inhibit malignant proliferation. Notably, it was reported that CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated chromosomal elimination using two sgRNAs targeting repetitive sequences on chromosome 21 in the DS-iPSCs converted trisomy 21 to disomy at a rate of approximately 15% (Figure 1D). However, the off-target effects of the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the efficacy of aneuploidy rescue used in this approach should be evaluated and improved for application to basic and clinical research on aneuploidy disorders.

3. Reprogramming-Mediated Karyotype Correction

The genetic manipulations of aneuploidy described above have provided new insights for overcoming various diseases. However, these approaches must be accompanied by a risk of off-target alterations to the genome. Recently, as an alternative approach that avoids these potential problems, it has been reported that iPSC reprogramming potentially corrects structural and numerical chromosomal anomalies [100,101,102].

3.1. Cell-Autonomous Correction of Ring Chromosome During iPSC Reprogramming

Miller–Dieker syndrome (MDS) is caused by heterozygous deletion of human band ch17p13.3, and some MDS patients carry ring chromosome 17 with the 17p13.3 deletion [103]. MDS patients have several clinical phenotypes, including brain malformation, and mental and growth retardation [104]. When primary fibroblasts from an MDS patient with ring chromosome 17 were reprogrammed into iPSCs, the ring chromosome 17 was lost and, instead, another chromosome 17 was duplicated in four out of six clones, thereby establishing the uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 17 (Figure 2A). In this approach of ring chromosome correction, the set of chromosomes is numerically corrected while the expression of the imprinted genes on the UPD chromosomes might not be rescued. Therefore, it is necessary to develop other UPD-independent approaches for ring chromosome correction [101,105,106] (Figure 2A).

3.2. Trisomy-Biased Chromosome Loss (TCL) to Convert the Trisomy into Disomy During iPSC Reprogramming

Hirota et al. [102] demonstrated that aneuploidy was corrected at a rate of approximately 20% during the process of reprogramming Klinefelter syndrome-modeled XXY mouse primary fibroblasts into iPSCs. The euploid XY iPSCs generated from Klinefelter syndrome model mice differentiated into functional testicular sperm (Figure 2B). Notably, the trisomy-biased chromosome loss through iPSC reprogramming was also enforced in DS iPS cells, which lost the extra copy of chromosome 21. Interestingly, the long-term passage of DS-iPSCs with trisomy 21 also led to TCL, thereby correcting the karyotype. However, the mechanisms that causes TCL remains unclear.

4. Concluding Remarks

In this review, we have provided an overview of the deletion or silencing of an extra chromosome copy using genome editing technology, cell-autonomous correction of ring chromosomes, and TCLs during the reprogramming process in constitutional aneuploidy disorders. However, most of these approaches still have low efficacy [94,105].
There is still a gap between genome editing technology-mediated trisomy rescue in vitro and its clinical applications. Since it is too difficult to evaluate the on-target efficacy and risk of off-target effect by genome editing in vivo and to deliver the genome editing tools into the target tissues, the safety of genome editing therapy in human bodies should be improved. That is why it is not practical to apply chromosome correction methods in cultured cells into aneuploidy disorder patients. In contrast, ex vivo genome editing therapy has been advancing because the quality of genome-edited cells can be checked before introducing them into the patients. For examples, genome editing technology in the hematopoietic cells such as T cells ex vivo have been used to overcome HIV infection [107] and leukemia progression [108]. In the future, applications of genome editing technology-mediated trisomy rescue mentioned in this review into T cells from Down syndrome patients might contribute to reducing or overcoming the risk of leukemia.
Since MVAs have different random and multiple aneuploidies, it is not practical to apply the genome editing technology-mediated chromosome correction mentioned in this review. Importantly, the iPSC reprogramming of mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) from BubR1 hypomorphic mice did not correct MVA [109], implying that BubR1 might be required for maintenance of the karyotype after chromosome number rescue accompanied with iPSC reprogramming. For the potential therapy for MVA1 patients, it might be useful to correct the BubR1 mutations using genome editing technology.
In conclusion, we addressed several approaches that may contribute to future therapy for aneuploidy disorders. Further studies are needed to improve the efficacy of aneuploidy correction using genome editing technology and iPSC reprogramming for the clinical applications of these approaches.

Author Contributions

S.N.A., K.F., K.T., T.M., and S.M. wrote the paper. T.M. and S.M. supervised this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (to S.N.A., T.M., and S.M.: 19K16520, 19K22515, 15H04321, 15H01216, 15K15017, 18H04979, and 18H02624); by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (to S.M.); by the Center of World Intelligence Projects for Nuclear S&T and Human Resource Development from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (to S.M.); by AMED-PRIME from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED (to T.M.: JP18gm5910011h0004); by research grants from the Naito Foundation (to S.M. and T.M.); by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED (to T.M.); by Ono Medical Research Foundation (to T.M.); by Takeda Science Foundation (to T.M.); and by AMED-BIRTHDAY from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Developmental, AMED (to S.M.: 18950264).

Acknowledgments

We thank Takashi Yamamoto, Hideshi Kawakami, Junko Yamane, Hiroe Ohnishi, and Hirofumi Ohashi for helpful discussions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Orr, B.; Godek, K.M.; Compton, D. Aneuploidy. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25, 538–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ganmore, I.; Smooha, G.; Izraeli, S. Constitutional aneuploidy and cancer predisposition†. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2009, 18, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Spencer, K. Aneuploidy screening in the first trimester. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 2007, 145, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Thorsted, A.; Lauridsen, J.; Hoyer, B.; Arendt, L.; Bech, B.; Toft, G.; Hougaard, K.; Olsen, J.; Bonde, J.P.; Ramlau-Hansen, C. Birth weight for gestational age and the risk of infertility: A danish cohort study. Hum. Reprod. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mantzouratou, A.; Mania, A.; Fragouli, E.; Xanthopoulou, L.; Tashkandi, S.; Fordham, K.; Ranieri, D.; Doshi, A.; Nuttall, S.; Harper, J.; et al. Variable aneuploidy mechanisms in embryos from couples with poor reproductive histories undergoing preimplantation genetic screening. Hum. Reprod. 2007, 22, 1844–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Moorthie, S.; Congenital Disorders Expert Group; Blencowe, H.; Darlison, M.W.; Gibbons, S.; Lawn, J.E.; Mastroiacovo, P.; Morris, J.K.; Modell, B.; Bittles, A.H.; et al. Chromosomal disorders: Estimating baseline birth prevalence and pregnancy outcomes worldwide. J. Community Genet. 2017, 9, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hassold, T.; Hunt, P. Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: What we know and what we wish we knew. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2009, 21, 703–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Soler, A.; Morales, C.; Mademont-Soler, I.; Margarit, E.; Borrell, A.; Borobio, V.; Muñoz, M.; Sánchez, A. Overview of Chromosome Abnormalities in First Trimester Miscarriages: A Series of 1,011 Consecutive Chorionic Villi Sample Karyotypes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2017, 152, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Allanson, J.E.; McGillivray, B.C.; Hall, J.G.; Shaw, D.; Kalousek, D.K. Cytogenetic findings in over 2000 amniocenteses. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1983, 129, 846–850. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fragouli, E.; Alfarawati, S.; Spath, K.; Jaroudi, S.; Sarasa, J.; Enciso, M.; Wells, D. The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum. Genet. 2013, 132, 1001–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bianchi, D.W.; Parker, R.L.; Wentworth, J.; Madankumar, R.; Saffer, C.; Das, A.F.; Craig, J.A.; Chudova, D.I.; Devers, P.L.; Jones, K.W. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 799–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Driscoll, D.A.; Gross, S. Prenatal Screening for Aneuploidy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 2556–2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Sanchez-Ribas, I.; Diaz-Gimeno, P.; Sebastián-León, P.; Mercader, A.; Quiñonero, A.; Ballesteros, A.; Pellicer, A.; Domínguez, F. Transcriptomic behavior of genes associated with chromosome 21 aneuploidies in early embryo development. Fertil. Steril. 2019, 111, 991–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fitzpatrick, D.R. Transcriptional consequences of autosomal trisomy: Primary gene dosage with complex downstream effects. Trends. Genet. 2005, 21, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dierssen, M.; Herault, Y.; Estivill, X. Aneuploidy: From a Physiological Mechanism of Variance to Down Syndrome. Physiol. Rev. 2009, 89, 887–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Toufaily, M.H.; Westgate, M.N.; Lin, A.E.; Holmes, L.B. Causes of Congenital Malformations. Birth. Defects. Res. 2018, 110, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, R.; Hao, L.; Wang, L.; Chen, M.; Li, W.; Li, R.; Yu, J.; Xiao, J.; Wu, J. Gene expression analysis of induced pluripotent stem cells from aneuploid chromosomal syndromes. BMC Genom. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Piovesan, A.; Pelleri, M.C.; Antonaros, F.; Strippoli, P.; Caracausi, M.; Vitale, L. On the length, weight and GC content of the human genome. BMC Res. Notes 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Goel, N.; Morris, J.K.; Tucker, D.; De Walle, H.E.K.; Bakker, M.K.; Kancherla, V.; Marengo, L.; Canfield, M.A.; Kallen, K.; Lelong, N.; et al. Trisomy 13 and 18—Prevalence and mortality—A multi-registry population based analysis. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2019, 179, 2382–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Domingo, L.; Carey, J.C.; Eckhauser, A.; Wilkes, J.; Menon, S.C. Mortality and resource use following cardiac interventions in children with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 and congenital heart disease. Pediatr. Cardiol. 2019, 40, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Janvier, A.; Farlow, B.; Barrington, K.J.; Carey, J.C.; Kosho, T. Parental hopes, interventions, and survival of neonates with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18. Am. J. Med. Genet. C. Semin. Med. Genet. 2016, 172, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hassold, T.J.; Jacobs, P.A. Trisomy in man. Ann. Rev. Genet. 1984, 18, 69–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Plaiasu, V. Down syndrome – genetics and cardiogenetics. Maedica 2017, 12, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Papavassiliou, P.; York, T.P.; Gursoy, N.; Hill, G.; Nicely, L.V.; Sundaram, U.; McClain, A.; Aggen, S.H.; Eaves, L.; Riley, B.; et al. The phenotype of persons having mosaicism for trisomy 21/Down syndrome reflects the percentage of trisomic cells present in different tissues. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2009, 149, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Bray, I.; Wright, D.E.; Davies, C.; Hook, E.B. Joint estimation of down syndrome risk and ascertainment rates: A meta-analysis of nice published data sets. Prenat. Diagn. 1998, 18, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Capone, G.T.; Chicoine, B.; Bulova, P.; Stephens, M.; Hart, S.; Crissman, B.; Videlefsky, A.; Myers, K.; Roizen, N.; Esbensen, A.; et al. Co-occurring medical conditions in adults with down syndrome: A systematic review toward the development of health care guidelines. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2018, 176, 116–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, W.; Wang, X.; Li, S. Investigation of copy number variations on chromosome 21 detected by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) microarray in patients with congenital anomalies. Mol. Cytogenet. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Banno, K.; Omori, S.; Hirata, K.; Nawa, N.; Nakagawa, N.; Nishimura, K.; Ohtaka, M.; Nakanishi, M.; Sakuma, T.; Yamamoto, T.; et al. Systematic Cellular Disease Models Reveal Synergistic Interaction of Trisomy 21 and GATA1 Mutations in Hematopoietic Abnormalities. Cell Rep. 2016, 15, 1228–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bruns, D.A.; Martinez, A. An analysis of cardiac defects and surgical interventions in 84 cases with full trisomy 18. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2016, 170A, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cereda, A.; Carey, J.C. The trisomy 18 syndrome. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gersen, S.L.; Keagle, M.B. The Principles of Clinical Cytogenetics, 2nd ed.; Humana Press Inc.: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2005; p. 616. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wyllie, J.P.; Wright, M.J.; Burn, J.; Hunter, S. Natural history of trisomy 13. Arch. Dis. Child. 1994, 71, 343–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Crider, K.S.; Olney, R.S.; Cragan, J.D. Trisomies 13 and 18: Population prevalences, characteristics, and prenatal diagnosis, metropolitan Atlanta, 1994–2003. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2008, 146, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Peroos, S.; Forsythe, E.; Pugh, J.H.; Arthur-Farraj, P.; Hodes, D. Longevity and Patau syndrome: What determines survival? BMJ Case Rep. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Plaiasu, V.; Ochiana, D.; Motei, G.; Anca, I.; Georgescu, A. Clinical relevance of cytogenetics to pediatric practice. Postnatal findings of Patau syndrome – Review of 5 cases. Maedica 2010, 5, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heard, E.; Turner, J. Function of the Sex Chromosomes in Mammalian Fertility. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Boil. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hassold, T.; Benham, F.; Leppert, M. Cytogenetic and molecular analysis of sex-chromosome monosomy. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1988, 42, 534–541. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhong, Q.; Layman, L.C. Genetic considerations in the patient with Turner syndrome--45,X with or without mosaicism. Fertil. Steril. 2012, 98, 775–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Pinsker, J.E. Clinical review: Turner syndrome: Updating the paradigm of clinical care. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2012, 97, 994–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wikström, A.M.; Dunkel, L. Testicular Function in Klinefelter Syndrome. Horm. Res. Paediatr. 2008, 69, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ross, J.L.; Roeltgen, D.P.; Kushner, H.; Zinn, A.R.; Reiss, A.; Bardsley, M.Z.; McCauley, E.; Tartaglia, N. Behavioral and Social Phenotypes in Boys With 47,XYY Syndrome or 47,XXY Klinefelter Syndrome. Pediatrics 2012, 129, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Giudice, M.G.; Vermeulen, M.; Wyns, C. Blood Testis Barrier and Somatic Cells Impairment in a Series of 35 Adult Klinefelter Syndrome Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 5717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Bojesen, A.; Juul, S.; Gravholt, C.H. Prenatal and Postnatal Prevalence of Klinefelter Syndrome: A National Registry Study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2003, 88, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Baker, D.; Telfer, M.A.; Richardson, C.E.; Clark, G.R. Chromosome Errors in Men With Antisocial Behavior. JAMA 1970, 214, 869–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Haslam, R.H.A.; Broske, S.P.; Moore, C.M.; Thomas, G.H.; Neill, C.A. Trisomy 9 Mosaicism with Multiple Congenital Anomalies. J. Med. Genet. 1973, 10, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Francke, U.; Benirschke, K.; Jones, O.W. Prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 9. Qual. Life Res. 1975, 29, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Crowe, C.A.; Schwartz, S.; Black, C.J.; Jaswaney, V. Mosaic trisomy 22: A case presentation and literature review of trisomy 22 phenotypes. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1997, 71, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hsu, L.Y.; Shapiro, L.R.; Gertner, M.; Lieber, E.; Hirschhorn, K. Trisomy 22: A clinical entity. J. Pediatr. 1971, 79, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hwang, S.; Williams, J.F.; Kneissig, M.; Lioudyno, M.; Rivera, I.; Helguera, P.; Busciglio, J.; Storchova, Z.; King, M.C.; Torres, E.M. Suppressing Aneuploidy-Associated Phenotypes Improves the Fitness of Trisomy 21 Cells. Cell Rep. 2019, 29, 2473–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wang, H.; Chau, M.H.K.; Cao, Y.; Kwok, K.Y.; Choy, K.W. Chromosome copy number variants in fetuses with syndromic malformations. Birth Defects Res. 2017, 109, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Trevisan, P.; Zen, T.D.; Rosa, R.F.M.; Da Silva, J.N.; Koshiyama, D.B.; Paskulin, G.A.; Zen, P.R.G. Chromosomal Abnormalities in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2013, 101, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oliveira, P.H.A.; Souza, B.S.; Pacheco, E.N.; Menegazzo, M.S.; Corrêa, I.S.; Zen, P.R.G.; Rosa, R.F.M.; Cesa, C.C.; Pellanda, L.C.; Vilela, M.A.P. Genetic Syndromes Associated with Congenital Cardiac Defects and Ophthalmologic Changes - Systematization for Diagnosis in the Clinical Practice. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2018, 110, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ko, J.M. Genetic Syndromes associated with Congenital Heart Disease. Korean Circ. J. 2015, 45, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Kahraman, S.; Benkhalifa, M.; Donmez, E.; Biricik, A.; Sertyel, S.; Findikli, N.; Berkil, H. The results of aneuploidy screening in 276 couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Prenat. Diagn. 2004, 24, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Callier, P.; Faivre, L.; Cusin, V.; Marle, N.; Thauvin-Robinet, C.; Sandre, D.; Rousseau, T.; Sagot, P.; Lacombe, E.; Faber, V.; et al. Microcephaly is not mandatory for the diagnosis of mosaic variegated aneuploidy syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part. A. 2005, 137, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kops, G.J.P.L.; Weaver, B.A.A.; Cleveland, D.W. On the road to cancer: Aneuploidy and the mitotic checkpoint. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2005, 5, 773–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vogt, E.; Kirsch-Volders, M.; Parry, J.; Eichenlaub-Ritter, U. Spindle formation, chromosome segregation and the spindle checkpoint in mammalian oocytes and susceptibility to meiotic error. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2008, 651, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Försti, A.; Frank, C.; Smolkova, B.; Kazimirova, A.; Barancokova, M.; Vymetalkova, V.; Kroupa, M.; Naccarati, A.; Vodickova, L.; Buchancova, J.; et al. Genetic variation in the major mitotic checkpoint genes associated with chromosomal aberrations in healthy humans. Cancer Lett. 2016, 380, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sieben, C.J.; Jeganathan, K.B.; Nelson, G.G.; Sturmlechner, I.; Zhang, C.; Van Deursen, W.H.; Bakker, B.; Foijer, F.; Li, H.; Baker, D.J.; et al. BubR1 allelic effects drive phenotypic heterogeneity in mosaic-variegated aneuploidy progeria syndrome. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 130, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kajii, T.; Ikeuchi, T.; Yang, Z.-Q.; Nakamura, Y.; Tsuji, Y.; Yokomori, K.; Kawamura, M.; Fukuda, S.; Horita, S.; Asamoto, A. Cancer-prone syndrome of mosaic variegated aneuploidy and total premature chromatid separation: Report of five infants. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2001, 104, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Kajii, T.; Kawai, T.; Takumi, T.; Misu, H.; Mabuchi, O.; Takahashi, Y.; Tachino, M.; Nihei, F.; Ikeuchi, T. Mosaic variegated aneuploidy with multiple congenital abnormalities: Homozygosity for total premature chromatid separation trait. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1998, 78, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kajii, T.; Ikeuchi, T. Premature chromatid separation (PCS) vs. premature centromere division (PCD). Am. J. Med. Genet. 2004, 126, 433–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ochiai, H.; Miyamoto, T.; Kanai, A.; Hosoba, K.; Sakuma, T.; Kudo, Y.; Asami, K.; Ogawa, A.; Watanabe, A.; Kajii, T.; et al. Talen-mediated single-base-pair editing identification of an intergenic mutation upstream of bub1b as causative of pcs (mva) syndrome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 1461–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Hanks, S.; Coleman, K.; Reid, S.; Plaja, A.; Firth, H.; Fitzpatrick, D.R.; Kidd, A.; Méhes, K.; Nash, R.; Robin, N.; et al. Constitutional aneuploidy and cancer predisposition caused by biallelic mutations in BUB1B. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36, 1159–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. García-Castillo, H.; Vásquez-Velásquez, A.I.; Rivera, H.; Barros-Núñez, P. Clinical and genetic heterogeneity in patients with mosaic variegated aneuploidy: Delineation of clinical subtypes. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2008, 146, 1687–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Matsuura, S.; Ito, E.; Tauchi, H.; Komatsu, K.; Ikeuchi, T.; Kajii, T. Chromosomal Instability Syndrome of Total Premature Chromatid Separation with Mosaic Variegated Aneuploidy Is Defective in Mitotic-Spindle Checkpoint. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2000, 67, 483–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Micale, M.A.; Schran, D.; Emch, S.; Kurczynski, T.W.; Rahman, N.; Van Dyke, D.L. Mosaic variegated aneuploidy without microcephaly: Implications for cytogenetic diagnosis. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part. A 2007, 143, 1890–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Suijkerbuijk, S.J.; Van Osch, M.H.; Bos, F.L.; Hanks, S.; Rahman, N.; Kops, G.J. Molecular causes for BUBR1 dysfunction in the human cancer predisposition syndrome mosaic variegated aneuploidy. Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 4891–4900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Kato, M.; Kato, T.; Hosoba, E.; Ohashi, M.; Fujisaki, M.; Ozaki, M.; Yamaguchi, M.; Sameshima, H.; Kurahashi, H. PCS/MVA syndrome caused by an Alu insertion in the BUB1B gene. Hum. Genome Var. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Wu, Q.; He, R.; Zhou, H.; Yu, A.C.; Zhang, B.; Teng, J.; Chen, J. Cep57, a NEDD1-binding pericentriolar material component, is essential for spindle pole integrity. Cell Res. 2012, 22, 1390–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Brightman, D.S.; Ejaz, S.; Dauber, A. Mosaic variegated aneuploidy syndrome caused by a CEP57 mutation diagnosed by whole exome sequencing. Clin. Case Rep. 2018, 6, 1531–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Aziz, K.; Sieben, C.J.; Jeganathan, K.B.; Hamada, M.; Davies, B.A.; Velasco, R.O.F.; Rahman, N.; Katzmann, D.J.; Van Deursen, J.M. Mosaic-variegated aneuploidy syndrome mutation or haploinsufficiency in Cep57 impairs tumor suppression. J. Clin. Investig. 2018, 128, 3517–3534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. De La Torre-García, O.; Mar-Aldama, R.; Salgado-Sangri, R.; Diaz-Gomez, N.; Bonilla-Arcaute, L.; Diaz-Ponce-Medrano, J.; Guevara-Yañez, R.; Córdova, E.J.; Monge-Cazares, T.; Orozco, L.; et al. A homozygous CEP57 c.915_925dupCAATGTTCAGC mutation in a patient with mosaic variegated aneuploidy syndrome with rhizomelic shortening in the upper and lower limbs and a narrow thorax. Eur. J. Med. Genet. 2019, 62, 195–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Snape, K.; Hanks, S.; Ruark, E.; Barros-Núñez, P.; Elliott, A.; Murray, A.; Lane, A.H.; Shannon, N.; Callier, P.; Chitayat, D.; et al. Mutations in CEP57 cause mosaic variegated aneuploidy syndrome. Nat. Genet. 2011, 43, 527–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Pinson, L.; Mannini, L.; Willems, M.; Cucco, F.; Sirvent, N.; Frebourg, T.; Quarantotti, V.; Collet, C.; Schneider, A.; Sarda, P.; et al. Cep57 mutation in a girl with mosaic variegated aneuploidy syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2014, 164A, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Yost, S.; De Wolf, B.; Hanks, S.; Zachariou, A.; Marcozzi, C.; Clarke, M.; De Voer, R.M.; Etemad, B.; Uijttewaal, E.; Ramsay, E.; et al. Biallelic TRIP13 mutations predispose to Wilms tumor and chromosome missegregation. Nat. Genet. 2017, 49, 1148–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Alfieri, C.; Chang, L.; Barford, D. Mechanism for remodelling of the cell cycle checkpoint protein MAD2 by the ATPase TRIP13. Nature. 2018, 559, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Marks, D.H.; Thomas, R.; Chin, Y.; Shah, R.; Khoo, C.; Benezra, R. Mad2 Overexpression Uncovers a Critical Role for TRIP13 in Mitotic Exit. Cell Rep. 2017, 19, 1832–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Thomas, R.; Marks, D.H.; Chin, Y.; Benezra, R. Whole chromosome loss and associated breakage-fusion-bridge cycles transform mouse tetraploid cells. EMBO J. 2018, 37, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Tada, M.; Matsumura, H.; Kurose, Y.; Nakatsuji, N.; Tada, T. Target chromosomes of inducible deletion by a Cre/inverted loxP system in mouse embryonic stem cells. Chromosom. Res. 2009, 17, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Smith, A.J.H.; Xian, J.; Richardson, M.; Johnstone, K.A.; Rabbitts, P.H. Cre-loxp chromosome engineering of a targeted deletion in the mouse corresponding to the 3p21.3 region of homozygous loss in human tumours. Oncogene 2002, 21, 4521–4529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Sato, H.; Kato, H.; Yamaza, H.; Masuda, K.; Nguyen, H.T.N.; Pham, T.T.M.; Han, X.; Hirofuji, Y.; Nonaka, K. Engineering of Systematic Elimination of a Targeted Chromosome in Human Cells. BioMed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lewandoski, M.; Martin, G.R. Cre–mediated chromosome loss in mice. Nat. Genet. 1997, 17, 223–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Otsuji, T.; Matsumura, H.; Suzuki, T.; Nakatsuji, N.; Tada, T.; Tada, M. Rapid Induction of Large Chromosomal Deletions by a Cre/Inverted loxP System in Mouse ES Cell Hybrids. J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 378, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Matsumura, H.; Tada, M.; Otsuji, T.; Yasuchika, K.; Nakatsuji, N.; Surani, A.; Tada, T. Targeted chromosome elimination from es-somatic hybrid cells. Nat. Methods. 2007, 4, 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Li, L.B.; Chang, K.H.; Wang, P.R.; Hirata, R.K.; Papayannopoulou, T.; Russell, D.W. Trisomy correction in Down syndrome induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell. Stem. Cell. 2012, 11, 615–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Zuo, E.; Huo, X.; Yao, X.; Hu, X.; Sun, Y.; Yin, J.; He, B.; Wang, X.; Shi, L.; Ping, J.; et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted chromosome elimination. Genome Boil. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Adikusuma, F.; Williams, N.; Grutzner, F.; Hughes, J.; Thomas, P. Targeted Deletion of an Entire Chromosome Using CRISPR/Cas9. Mol. Ther. 2017, 25, 1736–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jiang, J.; Jing, Y.; Cost, G.J.; Chiang, J.C.; Kolpa, H.J.; Cotton, A.M.; Carone, D.M.; Carone, B.R.; Shivak, D.A.; Guschin, D.Y.; et al. Translating dosage compensation to trisomy 21. Nature 2013, 500, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Sauer, B.; Henderson, N. Cre-stimulated recombination at loxP -containing DNA sequences placed into the mammalian genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 1989, 17, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Omori, S.; Tanabe, H.; Banno, K.; Tsuji, A.; Nawa, N.; Hirata, K.; Kawatani, K.; Kokubu, C.; Takeda, J.; Taniguchi, H.; et al. A Pair of Maternal Chromosomes Derived from Meiotic Nondisjunction in Trisomy 21 Affects Nuclear Architecture and Transcriptional Regulation. Sci. Rep. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Costa, V.; Sommese, L.; Casamassimi, A.; Colicchio, R.; Angelini, C.; Marchesano, V.; Milone, L.; Farzati, B.; Giovane, A.; Fiorito, C.; et al. Impairment of circulating endothelial progenitors in Down syndrome. BMC Med. Genom. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Sangrithi, M.N.; Turner, J.M.A. Mammalian X Chromosome Dosage Compensation: Perspectives From the Germ Line. BioEssays. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Chiang, J.C.; Jiang, J.; Newburger, P.E.; Lawrence, J.B. Trisomy silencing by XIST normalizes Down syndrome cell pathogenesis demonstrated for hematopoietic defects in vitro. Nat. Commun. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Trevino, A.E.; Zhang, F. Genome Editing Using Cas9 Nickases. Methods Enzymol. 2014, 546, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Knott, G.J.; Doudna, J.A. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering. Science 2018, 361, 866–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Sternberg, S.H.; Redding, S.; Jinek, M.; Greene, E.C.; Doudna, J.A. DNA interrogation by the crispr rna-guided endonuclease cas9. Nature 2014, 507, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. O’Connell, M.R.; Oakes, B.L.; Sternberg, S.H.; East-Seletsky, A.; Kaplan, M.; Doudna, J.A. Programmable RNA recognition and cleavage by CRISPR/Cas9. Nature 2014, 516, 263–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Takahashi, K.; Yamanaka, S. Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors. Cell 2006, 126, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Bershteyn, M.; Hayashi, Y.; Desachy, G.; Hsiao, E.C.; Sami, S.; Tsang, K.M.; Weiss, L.A.; Kriegstein, A.R.; Yamanaka, S.; Wynshaw-Boris, A. Cell-autonomous correction of ring chromosomes in human induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 2014, 507, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Hirota, T.; Ohta, H.; Powell, B.E.; Mahadevaiah, S.K.; Ojarikre, O.A.; Saitou, M.; Turner, J.M.A. Fertile offspring from sterile sex chromosome trisomic mice. Science 2017, 357, 932–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Gisselsson, D. Ring chromosomes: Vicious circles at the end and beginning of life. Atlas Genet. Cytogenet. Oncol. Haematol. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Dobyns, W.B.; Stratton, R.F.; Parke, J.T.; Greenberg, F.; Nussbaum, R.L.; Ledbetter, D.H. Miller-Dieker syndrome: Lissencephaly and monosomy 17p. J. Pediatr. 1983, 102, 552–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Plona, K.; Kim, T.; Halloran, K.; Wynshaw-Boris, A. Chromosome therapy: Potential strategies for the correction of severe chromosome aberrations. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 2016, 172, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kim, T.; Plona, K.; Wynshaw-Boris, A. A novel system for correcting large-scale chromosomal aberrations: Ring chromosome correction via reprogramming into induced pluripotent stem cell (ipsc). Chromosoma 2017, 126, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hütter, G.; Nowak, D.; Mossner, M.; Ganepola, S.; Müßig, A.; Allers, K.; Schneider, T.; Hofmann, J.; Kücherer, C.; Blau, O.; et al. Long-Term Control of HIV byCCR5Delta32/Delta32 Stem-Cell Transplantation. New Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 692–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Couzin-Frankel, J. Cancer immunotherapy. Baby’s leukemia recedes after novel cell therapy. Science 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hamada, M.; Malureanu, L.A.; Wijshake, T.; Zhou, W.; Van Deursen, J.M. Reprogramming to Pluripotency Can Conceal Somatic Cell Chromosomal Instability. PLoS Genet. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Cells 09 00239 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic overview of elimination of extra chromosome 21 (chr 21) using genome editing technology. (A) Integration of the GFP (EGFP) and HSV-tk gene cassette surrounded by two inverted loxP sites on the homologous arms of chr 21: Cre-dependent recombination between the sister chromatids with inverted loxP generates unstable dicentric and acentric chromosomes for chromosome elimination. (B) Knock-in of the TKneo gene cassette into the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene exon 3 target locus of one extra copy of chr 21 in Down syndrome (DS)-iPSCs enabled the correction of aneuploidy, followed by positive drug and negative using G418 (neomycin) and GCV (ganciclovir), respectively. (C) Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN)-mediated XIST gene knock-in on the Dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) gene locus of chr 21 induced Barr body formation to silence the extra copy of chr 21 in DS-iPSCs. (D) CRISPR/Cas9 system targeting the unique repeat sequences introduces multiple DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) into the target chromosome for deletion of the entire chromosome; XY mouse zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA to the repeat sequence on the X chromosome for the generation of XO mice in vivo; and DS iPSCs transfected with CRISPR/Cas9 expression vector for multiple cleavages into the extra copy of chr 21 in vitro.
Figure 1. Schematic overview of elimination of extra chromosome 21 (chr 21) using genome editing technology. (A) Integration of the GFP (EGFP) and HSV-tk gene cassette surrounded by two inverted loxP sites on the homologous arms of chr 21: Cre-dependent recombination between the sister chromatids with inverted loxP generates unstable dicentric and acentric chromosomes for chromosome elimination. (B) Knock-in of the TKneo gene cassette into the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene exon 3 target locus of one extra copy of chr 21 in Down syndrome (DS)-iPSCs enabled the correction of aneuploidy, followed by positive drug and negative using G418 (neomycin) and GCV (ganciclovir), respectively. (C) Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN)-mediated XIST gene knock-in on the Dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) gene locus of chr 21 induced Barr body formation to silence the extra copy of chr 21 in DS-iPSCs. (D) CRISPR/Cas9 system targeting the unique repeat sequences introduces multiple DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) into the target chromosome for deletion of the entire chromosome; XY mouse zygotes injected with Cas9 mRNA and sgRNA to the repeat sequence on the X chromosome for the generation of XO mice in vivo; and DS iPSCs transfected with CRISPR/Cas9 expression vector for multiple cleavages into the extra copy of chr 21 in vitro.
Cells 09 00239 g001
Cells 09 00239 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic overview of iPSC reprogramming-mediated chromosome correction. (A) Cell-autonomous correction of the ring chromosome 17 (r(17)) in Miller–Dieker syndrome (MDS) through the loss of abnormal ring chromosome and compensatory uniparental disomy (UPD) mechanism during the reprogramming process. (B) iPSC reprogramming-mediated trisomy-biased chromosome loss corrects the XXY aneuploidy mouse primary fibroblasts from Klinefelter syndrome model mice to rescue the infertility. Euploid XY iPSCs are differentiated into the functional sperms capable to generate the F1 and F2 generation-pups.
Figure 2. Schematic overview of iPSC reprogramming-mediated chromosome correction. (A) Cell-autonomous correction of the ring chromosome 17 (r(17)) in Miller–Dieker syndrome (MDS) through the loss of abnormal ring chromosome and compensatory uniparental disomy (UPD) mechanism during the reprogramming process. (B) iPSC reprogramming-mediated trisomy-biased chromosome loss corrects the XXY aneuploidy mouse primary fibroblasts from Klinefelter syndrome model mice to rescue the infertility. Euploid XY iPSCs are differentiated into the functional sperms capable to generate the F1 and F2 generation-pups.
Cells 09 00239 g002
Table
Table 1. Human Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders.
Table 1. Human Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders.
DiseaseInheritanceCausative Gene (Gene Ontology)Chromosome ImbalanceFrequency of PatientsClinical Features
Congenital Heart DefectMicrocephalyMental RetardationCancer PredispositionOthers
Autosomal chromosome
Down syndromeIC T 211/750 live births+−++upward-slanting palpebral fissures, epicanthal folds, single palm fold
Edwards syndromeIC T 181/6000–1/8000 live births++unknownunknownprominent occiput, low-set malformed ear, micrognathia
Patau syndromeIC T 131/20,000 live births++unknownunknownpolydactyl, midline cleft lip, flexion of the fingers, polycystic kidneys
Mosaic trisomy 8IC Mosaic T 8>100 cases reported+−++morphological brain abnormalities, high arched or cleft palate, micrognathia, renal malformation
Mosaic trisomy 9IC Mosaic T 9>40 cases reported+−++morphological brain abnormalities, micrognathia, Dandy–Walker malformation, renal malformation
Mosaic trisomy 22IC Mosaic T 22>20 cases reported+++unknownhemi dystrophy, midfacial hypoplasia, cleft palate, micrognathia, renal hypoplasia
Sex chromosome
Turner syndromeIC M X1/2000–1/5000 live female births+++−posteriorly rotated ears, neck webbing, broad chest, short stature, micrognathia
Klinefelter syndromeIC add chr X in male1/426–1/1000 live male births−−+−tall stature, long limbs, hypogonadism, infertility
XXX syndromeIC T X1/900 live female births−−−−tall stature, normal fertility
XYY syndromeIC add chr Y in male1/800–1/1000 live male births−−−−tall stature, hyperactive behavior, distractibility, temper tantrums, low frustration tolerance
Mosaic Variegated Aneuploidy (MVA)—autosomal and sex chromosome
MVA1 or MVAARBUB1B (mitotic SAC)M, T, and double T<1/1,000,000 live births++++Dandy–Walker complex, cataracts, premature aging, multiple renal cysts
MVA2ARCep57 (spindle pole integrity)M, T, and double T5 cases reported+++−rhizomelic shortening of the upper limbs, skull anomalies
MVA3ARTRIP13 (mitotic SAC)M, T, and double T6 cases reported−−++seizures, abnormal skin pigmentation, arthrogryposis
IC: isolated cases; AR: autosomal recessive; T: trisomy; M: monosomy; add: additional; SAC: Spindle Assembly Checkpoint.
Table
Table 2. Gene targeting-mediated chromosome elimination and genome editing technology.
Table 2. Gene targeting-mediated chromosome elimination and genome editing technology.
Used Genome Editing SystemAneuploidy FocusedPurposeCell TypeTarget Gene LocusTransgeneSelection MethodInitial → Final GenotypeReference
Cre/inverted loxPXY genotypeChr delMouse zygoteschr YY-inverted loxP transgene−XY → XO[83]
Tetraploid mESCChr delmES somatic hybrid cellschr 11, chr 12, chr 6CECPuro drug selection, sorting by FACS40,XY (2n) → 80,XXYY (4n)→ 79,XXYY (4n)[85]
Tetraploid mESCChr delHybrid cells from two CEC transgenic ESC lines (CEC-ESC)chr 6, chr 11, chr 12, chr 17CECPuro and neo drug selection, sorting by FACS80,XXXY (4n) → 78,XXYY (4n)[84]
CEC-mESCChr delTransgenic mESC containing a copy of CEC (CEC-ESC)chr 5 (band F), chr 13 (band A)CECSorting by FACS40,XY → 39,XY[80]
Down syndromeChr delHeLa cells with three copies of chr 21intergenic region between RCAN1 and CLIC6 genesloxP-HSV-tkGCV drug selection47,+21 → 46[82]
Tetraploid MEFChr delTetraploid immortalized murine embryonic fibroblastschr 9, chr 10, chr 12, chr 14GFP-inverted loxP-hDC2Sorting by FACS40,XY (2n) → 80,XXYY (4n) → 79,XXYY (4n)[79]
Conventional gene targetingDown syndromeKnock-inDown syndrome hiPSCAPP geneTKNEONeo and GCV drug selection47,+21 → 46[86]
ZFNsDown syndromeSilencing the chr 21Down syndrome hiPSCDYRK1A geneXISTPuro drug selection47,+21 → 47,+21(chr Barr)[89]
CRISPR/Cas9XY genotypeChr delmESCsSRE of centromere and long arm of chr Y−Puro drug selectionXY → XO[88]
XY genotypeChr delmESCsSRE of Rbmy1a1 and Ssty2 genes−Sorting by FACSXY → XO[87]
XY genotypeChr delMouse brainSRE of Rbmy1a1 and Ssty2 genes−Sorting by FACSXY → XO[87]
Turner syndromeChr delMouse zygotesSRE of Rbmy1a1, Ssty1, and Ssty2 genes−−XY → XO[87]
Turner syndromeChr delMouse zygotesSRE of long arm of chr X−−XX → XO[87]
mESC aneuploidyChr delStable mESC line with an extra human chr 14 established by chr transferSRE of long arm of chr 14−Sorting by FACSmChr14 = 1 → mChr14 = 0[87]
Down syndromeChr delmESCs with trisomy 21/hiPSCs with trisomy 21SRE of long arm of chr 21−Sorting by FACS47,+21 → 46[87]
CancerChr delHuman cancer cell line HT-29SRE of short and long arm of chr 7−Sorting by FACShChr7 = 4 →hChr7 = 3[87]
Chr: Chromosome; del: deletion; mESCs: mouse Embryonic Stem Cells; CEC: Chromosome Elimination Cassette; hiPSC: human iPSC; MEF: Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts; SRE: Sequences in repetitive elements; FACS: Fluorescence-activated cell sorting.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akutsu, S.N.; Fujita, K.; Tomioka, K.; Miyamoto, T.; Matsuura, S. Applications of Genome Editing Technology in Research on Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders. Cells 2020, 9, 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010239

AMA Style

Akutsu SN, Fujita K, Tomioka K, Miyamoto T, Matsuura S. Applications of Genome Editing Technology in Research on Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders. Cells. 2020; 9(1):239. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010239

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akutsu, Silvia Natsuko, Kazumasa Fujita, Keita Tomioka, Tatsuo Miyamoto, and Shinya Matsuura. 2020. "Applications of Genome Editing Technology in Research on Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders" Cells 9, no. 1: 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010239

APA Style

Akutsu, S. N., Fujita, K., Tomioka, K., Miyamoto, T., & Matsuura, S. (2020). Applications of Genome Editing Technology in Research on Chromosome Aneuploidy Disorders. Cells, 9(1), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells9010239

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop