Some individuals with a particular disease-causing mutation or genotype fail to express most if not all features of the disease in question, a phenomenon that is known as ‘reduced (or incomplete) penetrance’. Reduced penetrance is not uncommon; indeed, there are many known examples of ‘disease-causing mutations’ that fail to cause disease in at least a proportion of the individuals who carry them. Reduced penetrance may therefore explain not only why genetic diseases are occasionally transmitted through unaffected parents, but also why healthy individuals can harbour quite large numbers of potentially disadvantageous variants in their genomes without suffering any obvious ill effects. Reduced penetrance can be a function of the specific mutation(s) involved or of allele dosage. It may also result from differential allelic expression, copy number variation or the modulating influence of additional genetic variants in cis or in trans. The penetrance of some pathogenic genotypes is known to be age- and/or sex-dependent. Variable penetrance may also reflect the action of unlinked modifier genes, epigenetic changes or environmental factors. At least in some cases, complete penetrance appears to require the presence of one or more genetic variants at other loci. In this review, we summarize the evidence for reduced penetrance being a widespread phenomenon in human genetics and explore some of the molecular mechanisms that may help to explain this enigmatic characteristic of human inherited disease.

The most frequent recurring mutations in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are large deletions encompassing the NF1 gene and its flanking regions (NF1 microdeletions). The majority of these deletions encompass 1.4-Mb and are associated with the loss of 14 protein-coding genes and four microRNA genes. Patients with germline type-1 NF1 microdeletions frequently exhibit dysmorphic facial features, overgrowth/tall-for-age stature, significant delay in cognitive development, large hands and feet, hyperflexibility of joints and muscular hypotonia. Such patients also display significantly more cardiovascular anomalies as compared with patients without large deletions and often exhibit increased numbers of subcutaneous, plexiform and spinal neurofibromas as compared with the general NF1 population. Further, an extremely high burden of internal neurofibromas, characterised by >3000 ml tumour volume, is encountered significantly, more frequently, in non-mosaic NF1 microdeletion patients than in NF1 patients lacking such deletions. NF1 microdeletion patients also have an increased risk of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs); their lifetime MPNST risk is 16–26%, rather higher than that of NF1 patients with intragenic NF1 mutations (8–13%). NF1 microdeletion patients, therefore, represent a high-risk group for the development of MPNSTs, tumours which are very aggressive and difficult to treat. Co-deletion of the SUZ12 gene in addition to NF1 further increases the MPNST risk in NF1 microdeletion patients. Here, we summarise current knowledge about genotype–phenotype relationships in NF1 microdeletion patients and discuss the potential role of the genes located within the NF1 microdeletion interval whose haploinsufficiency may contribute to the more severe clinical phenotype.

Schwannomatosis is characterized by the predisposition to develop multiple schwannomas and, less commonly, meningiomas. Despite the clinical overlap with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), schwannomatosis is not caused by germline NF2 gene mutations. Instead, germline mutations of either the SMARCB1 or LZTR1 tumour suppressor genes have been identified in 86% of familial and 40% of sporadic schwannomatosis patients. In contrast to patients with rhabdoid tumours, which are due to complete loss-of-function SMARCB1 mutations, individuals with schwannomatosis harbour predominantly hypomorphic SMARCB1 mutations which give rise to the synthesis of mutant proteins with residual function that do not cause rhabdoid tumours. Although biallelic mutations of SMARCB1 or LZTR1 have been detected in the tumours of patients with schwannomatosis, the classical two-hit model of tumorigenesis is insufficient to account for schwannoma growth, since NF2 is also frequently inactivated in these tumours. Consequently, tumorigenesis in schwannomatosis must involve the mutation of at least two different tumour suppressor genes, an occurrence frequently mediated by loss of heterozygosity of large parts of chromosome 22q harbouring not only SMARCB1 and LZTR1 but also NF2. Thus, schwannomatosis is paradigmatic for a tumour predisposition syndrome caused by the concomitant mutational inactivation of two or more tumour suppressor genes. This review provides an overview of current models of tumorigenesis and mutational patterns underlying schwannomatosis that will ultimately help to explain the complex clinical presentation of this rare disease.

The sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and the comparison with its human counterpart have begun to reveal the spectrum of genetic changes that has accompanied human evolution. In addition to gross karyotypic rearrangements such as the fusion that formed human chromosome 2 and the human‐specific pericentric inversions of chromosomes 1 and 18, there is considerable submicroscopic structural variation involving deletions, duplications, and inversions. Lineage‐specific segmental duplications, detected by array comparative genomic hybridization and direct sequence comparison, have made a very significant contribution to this structural divergence, which is at least three‐fold greater than that due to nucleotide substitutions. Since structural genomic changes may have given rise to irreversible functional differences between the diverging species, their detailed analysis could help to identify the biological processes that have accompanied speciation. To this end, interspecies comparisons have revealed numerous human‐specific gains and losses of genes as well as changes in gene expression. The very considerable structural diversity (polymorphism) evident within both lineages has, however, hampered the analysis of the structural divergence between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The concomitant evaluation of genetic divergence and diversity at the nucleotide level has nevertheless served to identify many genes that have evolved under positive selection and may thus have been involved in the development of human lineage‐specific traits. Genes that display signs of weak negative selection have also been identified and could represent candidate loci for complex genomic disorders. Here, we review recent progress in comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes and discuss how the differences detected have improved our understanding of the evolution of the human genome. Hum Mutat 28(2), 99–130, 2007.

Background: Genomic disorders are caused by copy number changes that may exhibit recurrent breakpoints processed by nonallelic homologous recombination. However, region-specific disease-associated copy number changes have also been observed which exhibit non-recurrent breakpoints. The mechanisms underlying these non-recurrent copy number changes have not yet been fully elucidated. Results: We analyze large NF1 deletions with non-recurrent breakpoints as a model to investigate the full spectrum of causative mechanisms, and observe that they are mediated by various DNA double strand break repair mechanisms, as well as aberrant replication. Further, two of the 17 NF1 deletions with non-recurrent breakpoints, identified in unrelated patients, occur in association with the concomitant insertion of SINE/variable number of tandem repeats/Alu (SVA) retrotransposons at the deletion breakpoints. The respective breakpoints are refractory to analysis by standard breakpoint-spanning PCRs and are only identified by means of optimized PCR protocols designed to amplify across GC-rich sequences. The SVA elements are integrated within SUZ12P intron 8 in both patients, and were mediated by target-primed reverse transcription of SVA mRNA intermediates derived from retrotranspositionally active source elements. Both SVA insertions occurred during early postzygotic development and are uniquely associated with large deletions of 1 Mb and 867 kb, respectively, at the insertion sites. Conclusions: Since active SVA elements are abundant in the human genome and the retrotranspositional activity of many SVA source elements is high, SVA insertion-associated large genomic deletions encompassing many hundreds of kilobases could constitute a novel and as yet under-appreciated mechanism underlying large-scale copy number changes in the human genome.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is the most frequent disorder associated with multiple café-au-lait macules (CALM) which may either be present at birth or appear during the first year of life. Other NF1-associated features such as skin-fold freckling and Lisch nodules occur later during childhood whereas dermal neurofibromas are rare in young children and usually only arise during early adulthood. The NIH clinical diagnostic criteria for NF1, established in 1988, include the most common NF1-associated features. Since many of these features are age-dependent, arriving at a definitive diagnosis of NF1 by employing these criteria may not be possible in infancy if CALM are the only clinical feature evident. Indeed, approximately 46% of patients who are diagnosed with NF1 later in life do not meet the NIH diagnostic criteria by the age of 1 year. Further, the 1988 diagnostic criteria for NF1 are not specific enough to distinguish NF1 from other related disorders such as Legius syndrome. In this review, we outline the challenges faced in diagnosing NF1 in young children, and evaluate the utility of the recently revised (2021) diagnostic criteria for NF1, which include the presence of pathogenic variants in the NF1 gene and choroidal anomalies, for achieving an early and accurate diagnosis.