The mammalian nucleus has a distinct substructure that cannot be visualized directly by conventional microscopy. In this study, the organization of the DNA within the nucleus of multiple myeloma (MM) cells, their precursor cells (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance; MGUS) and control lymphocytes of the representative patients is visualized and quantified by superresolution microscopy. Three‐dimensional structured illumination microscopy (3D‐SIM) increases the spatial resolution beyond the limits of conventional widefield fluorescence microscopy. 3D‐SIM reveals new insights into the nuclear architecture of cancer as we show for the first time that it resolves organizational differences in intranuclear DNA organization of myeloma cells in MGUS and in MM patients. In addition, we report a significant increase in nuclear submicron DNA structure and structure of the DNA‐free space in myeloma nuclei compared to normal lymphocyte nuclei. Our study provides previously unknown details of the nanoscopic DNA architecture of interphase nuclei of the normal lymphocytes, MGUS and MM cells. This study opens new avenues to understanding the disease progression from MGUS to MM. J. Cell. Biochem. 116: 704–710, 2015. © 2014 The Authors. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is preceded by monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Up to date, it is difficult to predict an individual's time to disease progression and the treatment response. To examine whether the nuclear telomeric architecture will unravel some of these questions, we carried out. Three-dimensional (3D) telomere analysis on samples from patients diagnosed with MGUS and MM, as well as from patients who went into relapse. Telomere signal intensity, number of telomere aggregates, nuclear volume, and the overall nuclear telomere distribution (a/c ratio) were analyzed. The telomeric profiles allowed for the differentiation of the disease stages. The telomeric profiles of myeloma cells obtained from blood and bone marrow aspirates were identical. Based on this study, we discuss the use of 3D telomere profiling as a potential future tool for risk stratification and personalized treatment decisions.

Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is now established as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for fast and accurate detection of chromosomal abnormalities in patients with developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We present our experience with using CMA for postnatal and prenatal diagnosis in Estonian patients during 2009–2012. Since 2011, CMA is on the official service list of the Estonian Health Insurance Fund and is performed as the first-tier cytogenetic test for patients with DD/ID, MCA or ASD. A total of 1191 patients were analyzed, including postnatal (1072 [90%] patients and 59 [5%] family members) and prenatal referrals (60 [5%] fetuses). Abnormal results were reported in 298 (25%) patients, with a total of 351 findings (1–3 per individual): 147 (42%) deletions, 106 (30%) duplications, 89 (25%) long contiguous stretches of homozygosity (LCSH) events (>5 Mb), and nine (3%) aneuploidies. Of all findings, 143 (41%) were defined as pathogenic or likely pathogenic; for another 143 findings (41%), most of which were LCSH, the clinical significance remained unknown, while 61 (18%) reported findings can now be reclassified as benign or likely benign. Clinically relevant findings were detected in 126 (11%) patients. However, the proportion of variants of unknown clinical significance was quite high (41% of all findings). It seems that our ability to detect chromosomal abnormalities has far outpaced our ability to understand their role in disease. Thus, the interpretation of CMA findings remains a rather difficult task requiring a close collaboration between clinicians and cytogeneticists.

We present data from our clinical department's experience with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) regarding the diagnostic utility of 1 or 2 long contiguous stretches of homozygosity (LCSHs) in an outbred population. The study group consisted of 2,110 consecutive patients from 2011 to 2014 for whom CMA was performed. The minimum cut-off size for defining a homozygous stretch was 5 Mb. To focus on cases with no parental consanguinity, we further studied only patients in whom the total length of homozygous stretches did not exceed 28 Mb or 1% of the autosomal genome length. We identified 6 chromosomal regions where homozygous stretches appeared in at least 3 patients and excluded these from further analysis. In 2 out of 120 patients with an isolated finding of 1 or 2 non-recurrent LCSHs, a plausible candidate gene associated with their phenotype was identified within the homozygous stretch. In both of these cases, a pathogenic mutation was detected, leading to diagnoses of pyruvate kinase deficiency and Marinesco-Sjögren syndrome. To clarify whether previously found homozygous stretches could be important for the interpretation of genome-wide sequencing data, we report 7 cases in which homozygous stretches not encompassing a clinically associated gene were first found on CMA, followed by the diagnostic whole-exome sequencing. The diagnostic utility of single LCSHs, unlikely to be caused by uniparental disomy, is discussed in detail.

We report on a pure duplication of the proximal chromosome 2q in a 6.5‐year‐old boy with V‐shaped midline cleft palate and bifid uvula, posteriorly located tongue, and micrognathia (Pierre Robin sequence), celiac disease, failure to thrive, and developmental delay. Cytogenetic and FISH analysis indicated a duplication of chromosome 2q13‐q22. In general, pure proximal duplication or triplication of 2q is rare. The clinical features and chromosomal breakpoints of the 10 previously reported patients varied, and no common phenotype or proximal duplication/triplication 2q syndrome could be defined to date. However, based on four previous patients with different orofacial clefts and our case, a locus for orofacial clefting may be located at proximal 2q. The duplication/triplication comprised chromosome 2q13 in all five affected individuals including our patient. Our patient and three previous cases (two with cleft palate only (CPO) and one with cleft lip/palate (CL/P)) showed a cytogenetic breakpoint at 2q13, which could support the presence of a critical dominant gene disrupted by a common breakpoint, however, the fifth case with CPO showed different breakpoints, advocating against the disruption of a critical dominant gene and supporting that the overexpression of a gene(s) on chromosome 2q13‐q21 may cause cleft palate only (CPO) and Pierre Robin sequence. Hence, our findings support either the presence of one locus for orofacial clefting (CL/P, CPO, and Pierre Robin sequence) between markers D2S1897 (chromosome 2q12.2) and D2S2023 (chromosome 2q14.2), or alternatively the presence of a locus for CPO and Pierre Robin sequence on chromosome 2q13‐q21. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.