The comparison of life compatibility between trisomy 2 and trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) by bioinformatic-based databases

Abstract

Objectives: Trisomy occurs with an extra chromosome during cell division resulting in 47 chromosomes instead of 46 in the human genome. The overexpression of gene profiles is associated with abnormal phenotypes and a range of syndromes. Theoretically, trisomy can occur for each chromosome but the survival rate of individuals with trisomy 21 is much higher than other trisomies. In this paper, we discussed the life compatibility of trisomy 21 compared to an example trisomy of one of the other chromosomes (chromosome 2) with quantitative and qualitative gene profiles using bioinformatic databases.

Methods: The analyses included (i) the determination of total gene numbers and classifications, (ii) numbers and functions of housekeeping genes, tissue-specific genes, and imprinted gene numbers and (iii) comparing the profiles of the proteins involved in cell survival and cell death in both chromosomes.

Results: The results indicate that trisomy 2 is likely to be incompatible with life compared to trisomy 21 because both gene enrichment and function are important factors associated with the difference in survival rates. Protein-protein interaction analyses showed that the increased interaction rate in trisomy 2 leads to more complex pathological consequences due to disruptions in cellular functions, however the limited interaction network in trisomy 21 may help explain the clinical features of Down syndrome.

Conclusions: Compared to trisomy 2, the life compatibility of trisomy 21 is associated with gene numbers, functions, and protein-protein interactions.

Keywords

• Trisomy
• Down syndrome
• bioinformatics
• chromosomal disorders
• genetic disorders

References

1. 1. Banzai M, Sato S, Matsuda H, Kanasugi H. Trisomy 1 in a case of a missed abortion. J Hum Genet. 2004;49(7):396-397. doi: 10.1007/s10038-004-0164-1.
2. 2. Chen BF, Chan WY. The de novo DNA methyltransferase DNMT3A in development and cancer. Epigenetics. 2014;9(5):669-677. doi: 10.4161/epi.28324.
3. 3. De Toma I, Sierra C, Dierssen M. Meta-analysis of transcriptomic data reveals clusters of consistently deregulated gene and disease ontologies in Down syndrome. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(9):e1009317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009317.
4. 4. Eisenberg E, Levanon EY. Human housekeeping genes are compact. Trends Genet. 2003;19(7):362-365. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9525(03)00140-9.
5. 5. Eisenberg E, Levanon EY. Human housekeeping genes, revisited. Trends Genet. 2013;29(10):569-574. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2013.05.010.
6. 6. Gardiner K, Herault Y, Lott IT, Antonarakis SE, Reeves RH, Dierssen M. Down syndrome: from understanding the neurobiology to therapy. J Neurosci. 2010;30(45):14943-14945. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3728-10.2010.
7. 7. Hassold TJ, Jacobs PA. Trisomy in man. Annu Rev Genet. 1984;18:69-97. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.18.120184.000441.
8. 8. White PS. Chromosome 1. In eLS, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Ed.). 2007. doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005810.pub2.

9. 9. Holmes G. Gastrointestinal disorders in Down syndrome. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2014;7(1):6-8.
10. 10. Schieve LA, Boulet SL, Boyle C, Rasmussen SA, Schendel D. Health of children 3 to 17 years of age with Down syndrome in the 1997-2005 national health interview survey. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):e253-260. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1440.
11. 11. Vilardell M, Rasche A, Thormann A, et al. Meta-analysis of heterogeneous Down Syndrome data reveals consistent genome-wide dosage effects related to neurological processes. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:229. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-229.