2658-6533Research Results in Biomedicine2658-653310.18413/2658-6533-2022-8-4-0-12889Genetics<strong>Molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome</strong><br /> &nbsp;<strong>Molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome</strong><br /> &nbsp;IourovIvan Y.IourovIvan Y.ivan.iourov@gmail.comVorsanovaSvetlana G.VorsanovaSvetlana G.svorsanova@mail.ruKurinnaiaOksana S.KurinnaiaOksana S.kurinnaiaos@mail.ruZelenovaMaria A.ZelenovaMaria A.maria_zelenova@yahoo.comVasinKirill S.VasinKirill S.vasin-ks@rambler.ruDemidovaIrina A.DemidovaIrina A.demidovaia@yandex.ruKolotiiAlexey D.KolotiiAlexey D.kolotiyad@yandex.ruKravetsVictor S.KravetsVictor S.victorskravets@gmail.comIuditskaiaMaria M.IuditskaiaMaria M.myudickaya@mail.ruIakushevNikita S.IakushevNikita S.nikita.yakushev.1999@gmail.comSolovievIlia V.SolovievIlia V.svorsanova@mail.ruYurovYuri B.YurovYuri B.ivan.iourov@gmail.com20228400

Background:&nbsp;Despite the achievements of human genomics, comprehensive genome analysis, including acquiring the knowledge about intercellular and interindividual variations at (sub)chromosomal/cytogenomic level, remains a difficult task. This basically results from a lack of heuristic algorithms for uncovering (cyto)genomic and/or somatic genome variations and the functional outcomes. However, current developments in molecular cytogenetics and &ldquo;cytopostgenomics&rdquo; may offer a solution of the problem. The aim of the study:&nbsp;To present a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms of genetic (brain/neurodevelopmental) diseases. Materials and methods:&nbsp;Data on cytogenetic and (cyto)genomic variations (chromosome abnormalities, chromosome/genome instability, copy number variation (CNV) etc.) addressed by original molecular cytogenetic techniques and processed by original bioinformatic (cytopostgenomic) methods were used to develop the algorithm. Karyotyping was performed in 8556 individuals. FISH analysis was applied when required (cases of somatic mosaicism/chromosome instability). Molecular karyotyping by SNP-array was performed in 600 (~7%) cases. Results:&nbsp;Using our long-term experience of studying chromosomal and genomic variations/instability in neurodevelopmental disorders as well as original developments in (cyto)genomic data processing, we managed to present a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms for brain diseases. Estimated efficiency of the algorithm was established to achieve 84%. Analyzing the dynamics of applying cytogenetic and cytogenomic techniques throughout ~35 years of our diagnostic research we found that the diagnostic efficiency had been increasing from ~7% (exclusive diagnosis by karyotyping) to more than 80% (molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis). Conclusion:&nbsp;Here, we propose a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms for genetic diseases. The efficiency and ability to uncover mechanisms of chromosome instability allows us to conclude that the algorithm may be highly competitive for basic and diagnostic genomic/cyto(post)genomic research.

Background:&nbsp;Despite the achievements of human genomics, comprehensive genome analysis, including acquiring the knowledge about intercellular and interindividual variations at (sub)chromosomal/cytogenomic level, remains a difficult task. This basically results from a lack of heuristic algorithms for uncovering (cyto)genomic and/or somatic genome variations and the functional outcomes. However, current developments in molecular cytogenetics and &ldquo;cytopostgenomics&rdquo; may offer a solution of the problem. The aim of the study:&nbsp;To present a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms of genetic (brain/neurodevelopmental) diseases. Materials and methods:&nbsp;Data on cytogenetic and (cyto)genomic variations (chromosome abnormalities, chromosome/genome instability, copy number variation (CNV) etc.) addressed by original molecular cytogenetic techniques and processed by original bioinformatic (cytopostgenomic) methods were used to develop the algorithm. Karyotyping was performed in 8556 individuals. FISH analysis was applied when required (cases of somatic mosaicism/chromosome instability). Molecular karyotyping by SNP-array was performed in 600 (~7%) cases. Results:&nbsp;Using our long-term experience of studying chromosomal and genomic variations/instability in neurodevelopmental disorders as well as original developments in (cyto)genomic data processing, we managed to present a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms for brain diseases. Estimated efficiency of the algorithm was established to achieve 84%. Analyzing the dynamics of applying cytogenetic and cytogenomic techniques throughout ~35 years of our diagnostic research we found that the diagnostic efficiency had been increasing from ~7% (exclusive diagnosis by karyotyping) to more than 80% (molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis). Conclusion:&nbsp;Here, we propose a heuristic algorithm for molecular cytogenetic and cytopostgenomic analysis of the human genome to uncover mechanisms for genetic diseases. The efficiency and ability to uncover mechanisms of chromosome instability allows us to conclude that the algorithm may be highly competitive for basic and diagnostic genomic/cyto(post)genomic research.

chromosomechromosomal instabilitygenomegenome instabilitymolecular cytogeneticshuman diseasebrain diseasebioinformaticsneurodevelopmental disorderscytogenomicschromosomechromosomal instabilitygenomegenome instabilitymolecular cytogeneticshuman diseasebrain diseasebioinformaticsneurodevelopmental disorderscytogenomicsСписок литературыVorsanova SG, Yurov YB, Soloviev IV, et al. Molecular cytogenetic diagnosis and somatic genome variations. Current Genomics. 2010;11(6):440-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/138920210793176010Stankiewicz P, Lupski JR. Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annual Reviews of Medicine. 2010;61:437-455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-100708-204735.Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB. Single cell genomics of the brain: focus on neuronal diversity and neuropsychiatric diseases. Current Genomics. 2012;13(6):477-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/138920212802510439Liehr T. Molecular cytogenetics in the era of chromosomics and cytogenomic approaches. Frontiers in Genetics. 2021;12:720507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.720507Wain LV, Armour JA, Tobin MD. Genomic copy number variation, human health, and disease. The Lancet. 2009;374(9686):340-350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60249-XPotter H, Chial HJ, Caneus J, et al. Chromosome instability and mosaic aneuploidy in neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Frontiers in Genetics. 2019;10:1092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01092Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Kurinnaia OS, et al. Causes and consequences of genome instability in psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases. Molecular Biology. 2021;55(1):37-46. Russian. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0026898421010158Liehr T. About classical molecular genetics, cytogenetic and molecular cytogenetic data not considered by Genome Reference Consortium and thus not included in genome browsers like UCSC, Ensembl or NCBI. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2021;14(1):20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-021-00540-7Royer-Bertrand B, Cisarova K, Niel-Butschi F, et al. CNV detection from exome sequencing data in routine diagnostics of rare genetic disorders: opportunities and limitations. Genes. 2021;12(9):1427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12091427Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB. Systems Cytogenomics: are we ready yet? Current Genomics. 2021;22(2):75-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202922666210219112419Andriani GA, Maggi E, Piqu&eacute; D, et al. A direct comparison of interphase FISH versus low-coverage single cell sequencing to detect aneuploidy reveals respective strengths and weaknesses. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):10508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46606-wIourov IY. Cytopostgenomics: what is it and how does it work? Current Genomics. 2019;20(2):77-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/138920292002190422120524Hu Q, Maurais EG, Ly P. Cellular and genomic approaches for exploring structural chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosome Research. 2020;28(1):19-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-020-09626-1Spielmann M, Lupi&aacute;&ntilde;ez DG, Mundlos S. Structural variation in the 3D genome. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2018;19(7):453-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-018-0007-0Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB, et al. Ontogenetic and pathogenetic views on somatic chromosomal mosaicism. Genes. 2019;10(5):379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10050379Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB. In silico molecular cytogenetics: a bioinformatic approach to prioritization of candidate genes and copy number variations for basic and clinical genome research. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2014;7(1):98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-014-0098-zVorsanova SG, Yurov YB, Soloviev IV, et al. FISH-based analysis of mosaic aneuploidy and chromosome instability for investigating molecular and cellular mechanisms of disease. OBM Genetics. 2019;3(1):068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21926/obm.genet.1901068Liu Q, Karolak JA, Grochowski CM, et al. Parental somatic mosaicism for CNV deletions - A need for more sensitive and precise detection methods in clinical diagnostics settings. Genomics. 2020;112(5):2937-2941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2020.05.003Liehr T. False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on&thinsp;&gt;&thinsp;750,000 tests? Molecular Cytogenetics. 2022;15(1):36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-022-00612-2Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB. Pathway-based classification of genetic diseases. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2019;12:4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-019-0418-4Heng HH, Horne SD, Chaudhry S, et al. A postgenomic perspective on molecular cytogenetics. Current Genomics. 2018;19(3):227-239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202918666170717145716Rodin RE, Walsh CA. Somatic mutation in pediatric neurological diseases. Pediatric Neurology. 2018;87:20-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2018.08.008Graham EJ, Vermeulen M, Vardarajan B, et al. Somatic mosaicism of sex chromosomes in the blood and brain. Brain Research. 2019;1721:146345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146345Jourdon A, Fasching L, Scuderi S, et al. The role of somatic mosaicism in brain disease. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development. 2020;65:84-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2020.05.002Iourov IY, Yurov YB, Vorsanova SG, et al. Chromosome instability, aging and brain diseases. Cells. 2021;10(5):1256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10051256Mostovoy Y, Yilmaz F, Chow SK, et al. Genomic regions associated with microdeletion/microduplication syndromes exhibit extreme diversity of structural variation. Genetics. 2021;217(2):iyaa038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaa038Burssed B, Zamariolli M, Bellucco FT, et al. Mechanisms of structural chromosomal rearrangement formation. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2022;15(1):23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-022-00600-6Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Yurov YB. The variome concept: focus on CNVariome. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2019;12:52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-019-0467-8Dai X, Guo X. Decoding and rejuvenating human ageing genomes: Lessons from mosaic chromosomal alterations. Ageing Research Reviews. 2021;68:101342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2021.101342Heng J, Heng HH. Genome chaos, information creation, and cancer emergence: searching for new frameworks on the 50th anniversary of the &quot;war on cancer&quot;. Genes. 2021;13(1):101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13010101Ye JC, Horne S, Zhang JZ, et al. Therapy induced genome chaos: a novel mechanism of rapid cancer drug resistance. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2021;9:676344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.676344Jiang X-F, Xiong L, Bai L, et al. Structure and dynamics of human complication-disease network. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. 2022;164:112633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112633Ideker T, Hood L. A blueprint for systems biology. Clinical Chemistry. 2019;65(2):342-344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2018.291062Garc&iacute;a-Hern&aacute;ndez JL, Corchete LA, Marcos-Alcalde &Iacute;, et al. Pathogenic convergence of CNVs in genes functionally associated to a severe neuromotor developmental delay syndrome. Human Genomics. 2021;15(1):11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-021-00309-4Pe&ntilde;a-Chilet M, Esteban-Medina M, Falco MM, et al. Using mechanistic models for the clinical interpretation of complex genomic variation. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):18937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55454-7Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Voinova VY, et al. 3p22.1p21.31 microdeletion identifies CCK as Asperger syndrome candidate gene and shows the way for therapeutic strategies in chromosome imbalances. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2015;8:82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0185-9Vorsanova SG, Kolotii AD, Kurinnaia OS, et al. Turner&#39;s syndrome mosaicism in girls with neurodevelopmental disorders: a cohort study and hypothesis. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2021;14(1):9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-021-00529-2Vorsanova SG, Demidova IA, Kolotii AD, et al. Klinefelter syndrome mosaicism in boys with neurodevelopmental disorders: a cohort study and an extension of the hypothesis. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2022;15(1):8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-022-00588-zIourov IY, Liehr T, Vorsanova SG, et al. Interphase chromosome-specific multicolor banding (ICS-MCB): a new tool for analysis of interphase chromosomes in their integrity. Biomolecular Engineering. 2007;24(4):415-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioeng.2007.05.003Iourov IY, Vorsanova SG, Korostelev SA, et al. Long contiguous stretches of homozygosity spanning shortly the imprinted loci are associated with intellectual disability, autism and/or epilepsy. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2015;8:77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-015-0199-3da Silva FB, Machado-Neto JA, Bertini VHLL, et al. Single-nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-A) improves the identification of chromosomal abnormalities by metaphase cytogenetics in myelodysplastic syndrome. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2017;70(5):435-442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204023Papenhausen PR, Kelly CA, Harris S, et al. Clinical significance and mechanisms associated with segmental UPD. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2021;14(1):38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-021-00555-0Perovic D, Damnjanovic T, Jekic B, et al. Chromosomal microarray in postnatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in Serbian patients. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis. 2022;36(6):e24441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24441Yurov YB, Vorsanova SG, Iourov IY. Network-Based Classification of Molecular Cytogenetic Data. Current Bioinformatics. 2017;12(1):27-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1574893611666160606165119Zelenova MA, Yurov YB, Vorsanova SG, et al. Laundering CNV data for candidate process prioritization in brain disorders. Molecular Cytogenetics. 2019;12:54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13039-019-0468-7Breman A, Stankiewicz P. Karyotyping as the first genomic approach. Genomics of Rare Diseases: Academic Press; 2021:17-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820140-4.00002-8Chaves TF, Oliveira LF, Ocampos M, et al. Long contiguous stretches of homozygosity detected by chromosomal microarrays (CMA) in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders in the South of Brazil. BMC Medical Genomics. 2019;12(1):50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-019-0496-5Peedicayil J. Identification of biomarkers in neuropsychiatric disorders based on systems biology and epigenetics. Frontiers in Genetics. 2019;10:985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00985Singh AK, Olsen MF, Lavik LAS, et al. Detecting copy number variation in next generation sequencing data from diagnostic gene panels. BMC Medical Genomics. 2021;14(1):214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-021-01059-xDiab NS, Barish S, Dong W, et al. Molecular genetics and complex inheritance of congenital heart disease. Genes. 2021;12(7):1020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12071020Ye Z, McQuillan L, Poduri A, et al. Somatic mutation: The hidden genetics of brain malformations and focal epilepsies. Epilepsy Research. 2019;155:106161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106161Costantino I, Nicodemus J, Chun J. Genomic mosaicism formed by somatic variation in the aging and diseased brain. Genes. 2021;12(7):1071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12071071Peycheva V, Kamenarova K, Ivanova N, et al. Chromosomal microarray analysis of Bulgarian patients with epilepsy and intellectual disability. Gene. 2018;667:45-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2018.05.015Lee CL, Lee CH, Chuang CK, et al. Array-CGH increased the diagnostic rate of developmental delay or intellectual disability in Taiwan. Pediatrics and Neonatology. 2019;60(4):453-460. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2018.11.006Chehbani F, Tomaiuolo P, Picinelli C, et al. Yield of array-CGH analysis in Tunisian children with autism spectrum disorder. Molecular genetics &amp; genomic medicine. 2022;10(8):e1939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1939