Journal of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery

Online ISSN: 2433-1783 Print ISSN: 2433-2720
Japanese Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery
Japanese Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Academy Center, 358-5 Yamabuki-cho, Shinju-ku, Tokyo 162-0801, Japan
Journal of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery 2(2): 87-90 (2018)

Case ReportCase Report

Case Studies on the Molecular Diagnosis of Mowat–Wilson Syndrome: The Role of Chromosomal Microarray in Approaching Syndromic Congenital Heart Defects

1Department of Pediatrics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo ◇ Tokyo, Japan

2JSPS Research Fellow, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science ◇ Tokyo, Japan

3Department of Pathology and Tumor Biology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University ◇ Kyoto, Japan

受付日:2017年12月11日Received: December 11, 2017
受理日:2018年5月10日Accepted: May 10, 2018
発行日:2018年7月1日Published: July 1, 2018

Clinical recognition of the rarely occurring forms of syndromic congenital heart defects is not always straightforward. Chromosomal microarray testing is known to play promising roles in the diagnosis of congenital disorders presenting with multiple anomalous features. Herein, chromosomal microarray testing proved effective in establishing the molecular diagnosis of Mowat–Wilson syndrome, one of the under-recognized, phenotypically variable genetic syndromes often presenting with a congenital heart defect. Taking advantage of the increasingly available genetic diagnostic tools may aid in paving our way through the complicated differential diagnoses in such unexplained syndromic congenital heart defect circumstances.

Key words: chromosomal microarray; Mowat–Wilson syndrome; syndromic congenital heart defects


Syndromic congenital heart defects (CHDs) that are associated with multisystem congenital anomalies comprise 20–30% of the total CHD population.1) Advances in molecular diagnostics have deepened our understanding of underlying genetic etiologies in syndromic CHDs, and have contributed to the expanding list of differential diagnoses. However, recognizing rare and phenotypically variable forms of syndromic CHD remains a challenge.

Copy number variations (CNVs) are the cause of 10–20% of syndromic CHDs. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing, which aims to detect CNVs in a genome-wide manner, has thus recently earned a role as the first-line diagnostic tool in syndromic CHD diagnosis.2) CMA aids our way through complicated differential diagnoses in an unexplained syndromic CHD circumstance.3)

We here report on two patients successfully diagnosed by CMA testing to have Mowat–Wilson syndrome (MWS). MWS is one of the very rare syndromic CHDs, the diagnosis of which may often be delayed, based solely on clinical findings. We also discuss the approach towards syndromic CHDs in the era of molecular diagnostics.


Patient 1

The patient is a 3-year-old girl born as the second child of consanguineous parents. Her CHD diagnosis of pulmonary atresia with ventricular septal defect, and right aortic arch was made antenatally. Delivery was uneventful and she was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Due to early feeding difficulties, she required a feeding tube and remained tube-dependent until one year of age. After undergoing an initial Blalock-Taussig shunt palliation, she underwent repair of her CHD during infancy. She had a characteristic facial appearance with medially flared eyebrows, hypertelorism, telecanthus, and uplifted ear lobes (Fig. 1 (a)). Conventional karyotyping revealed inv(9)(p12q13), which was not diagnostic for her manifestations. She also tested negative for 22q11.2 deletion. Given her ear anomalies and iris colobomas along with her CHD diagnosis, CHARGE syndrome was considered as her primary diagnosis.

At age 3, she could walk a couple of steps with aid, and use very few, but intelligible words. By then, microcephaly had become a more prominent feature, and the facial gestalt prompted us to reconsider her diagnosis. Since she lacked some classical features of MWS, such as Hirschsprung disease, corpus callosum defects and urogenital anomalies, instead of performing MWS-targeted ZEB2 gene analyses, we selected CMA testing as our initial approach. CMA revealed a ZEB2-containing 3.7 Mb deletion (arr[hg19] 2q22.1q22.3 (141,783,763–145,531,555)×1), confirming the diagnosis of MWS (Fig. 2(a)). Parental testing determined that the deletion was de novo in origin.

Journal of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery 2(2): 87-90 (2018)

Fig. 1 Characteristic appearance of the patients

(a) The uplifted ear lobe in Patient 1, (b) microcephaly, medially flared eyebrows, hypertelorism, telecanthus, and the pointed chin in Patient 2 are shown.

Journal of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery 2(2): 87-90 (2018)

Fig. 2 Chromosomal microarray results, generated with CNAG software 3.5.1, reveals (a) ZEB2-containing 3.7 Mb deletion in Patient 1, and (b) 4.5 Mb deletion involving exon 9–10 of ZEB2 in Patient 2

Patient 2

The patient is an 11-year-old girl who was born as the third child of consanguineous parents. A heart murmur and stridor was heard after birth and the patient was transferred to the NICU, where the diagnosis of pulmonary artery sling, secundum atrial septal defect and tracheal stenosis was made. Her CHD was repaired during her initial hospitalization. She had a characteristic facial appearance with medially flared eyebrows, hypertelorism, telecanthus, uplifted ear lobes and a pointed chin (Fig. 1(b)). At age 3, a prolonged seizure episode occurred, accompanied by an abnormal electroencephalogram pattern of diffuse, high amplitude, spike-and-wave activities. Together with severely impaired speech, frequent laughing, happy disposition and facial features, her manifestations were suggestive of Angelman syndrome. However, genetic workup, including copy number analysis of the 15q11–q13 region, methylation analysis of SNRPN and UBE3A sequencing had all turned out negative, obscuring a definite diagnosis.

Later in life, microcephaly and severe developmental abnormalities became gradually manifest. At age 11, she still could not stand unaided and no intelligible words could be heard. In search of an etiology explaining her multiple anomalies, CMA testing was performed. CMA testing established a molecular diagnosis of MWS by revealing a 4.5 Mb deletion (arr[hg19] 2q22.1q22.3 (140,569,236–145,155,731)×1), involving exon 9–10 of the ZEB2 gene (Fig. 2(b)). Parental testing confirmed de novo occurrence of the deletion.


We report on two patients with CHD and concomitant unexplained multisystem anomalies suggestive of an underlying genetic disorder. The genetic etiology of MWS was successfully diagnosed by CMA testing. MWS is a recently established, thus under-recognized, congenital anomaly syndrome, the awareness of which needs to be raised among pediatric cardiologists.

Patients with MWS present with a characteristic facial appearance, including medially flared eyebrows, hypertelorism, telecanthus, a broad nasal bridge, a pointed chin, and uplifted ear lobes. Intellectual disability, especially severely impaired speech, microcephaly, epilepsy, agenesis of the corpus callosum, Hirschsprung disease, urogenital anomalies, and congenital heart disease are the classic manifestations of MWS.4) However, MWS diagnosis is at times challenging; the rarity, phenotypic variability and phenotypic overlap with other congenital disorders may hinder clinical recognition of the syndrome.

Among the highly variable spectrum of CHDs seen in MWS, pulmonary artery sling, an extremely rare CHD itself, seems a particular association, recurring in numerous MWS cases reported in the literature.5, 6) Previous studies have implicated the importance of ZEB2, the MWS-causing gene in the formation of neural crest derivatives. The spectrum of cardiovascular anomalies affecting patients with MWS are likewise thought to be the consequence of a cardiac neural crest induction, migration, and/or differentiation defect. While the cardiovascular malformations seen in ZEB2-ablated mouse models do not fully recapitulate those observed in human patients,7) by way of the quail-chick chimera technique and retroviral LacZ reporter introduction, studies on chick embryos have elegantly revealed the contribution of neural crest cells to the developing proximal pulmonary arteries.8) Thus, pulmonary valve and pulmonary artery abnormalities, as found in our two patients, may well be clues to phenotypic recognition of MWS.5) Ocular anomalies, such as colobomas seen in Patient 1, have been observed in other patients with MWS,9) and may also facilitate diagnosis in the absence of some classic features of MWS.

The genetic cause of MWS is haploinsufficiency of the ZEB2 gene at 2q22. While the majority of disease-causative defects are nonsense or frameshift nucleotide mutations, around 20% are more gross deletions within or including the ZEB2 gene,10, 11) which could potentially be overlooked by traditional sequencing technologies. Since our patients lacked some of the classical features of MWS, such as Hirschsprung disease and corpus callosum defects, we were not capable of narrowing down the differential diagnosis, and thus withheld performing ZEB2-targeted sequencing or dosage analysis. Furthermore, the clearly syndromic nature of their CHD phenotype prompted us to perform CMA testing as an initial approach, in search of CNVs responsible for the patients’ conditions. Our approach was contrary to the genetic testing strategy proposed by Saunders et al.,12) but as we have shown, workup may be individualized according to the patients’ presentation and strength of clinical suspicion.

For experienced dysmorphologists, establishing the diagnoses of syndromic CHDs including MWS may be quite straightforward. However, in Japan, there is a shortage of genetics and dysmorphology experts, and in such a situation clinical recognition of rare genetic syndromes is still a challenge. This background may lead us to rely more heavily on increasingly available genetic diagnostic tools. In the meantime, the cost and time consumed in sequencing genomes will steadily become reduced. Furthermore, the diagnostic yield of genetic testing may even surpass that of a thorough exam by a well-trained dysmorphologist.3) It is easy to imagine that in the near future, even more genome-wide genetic testing will be performed, and accordingly more genetic diagnoses will be made.

On the other hand, there are drawbacks to taking high-resolution, genome-wide genetic testing approaches. Experts have raised caution on interpreting CMA testing results, especially about overestimating the causality of de novo CNVs.13) Along with well-defined, recurrent, disease associated mutations, CMA testing usually reveals many unexpected findings, and variants of unknown significance. Confirming the causality of each individual variation is challenging. We clinicians rely on recurrence of identical variants in patient cohorts, and consistency with in vitro functional studies, in establishing a causality relationship of a novel CNV. Being de novo of origin, or involving genes known to function during embryological development, raises the possibility of the CNV being pathogenic, however, it is not a golden rule.

Pediatric cardiologists must be aware of the strengths and shortcomings of each available genetic testing modality and be well prepared for the era of molecular diagnostics. For the sake of our patients and their families, improving genetics literacy among pediatric cardiologists is an urgent issue.


The authors thank the patients and their families for their cooperation and permission to publish this work.

Conflict of Interest


Ethical Standards

The authors assert that all of the published work is in accordance with the institutional ethical standards and has been approved by the institutional ethics committee (#G3565). Written consent for use of the photographs and publication of testing results was obtained from the patients’ family.


1) Greenwood RD, Rosenthal A, Parisi L, et al: Extracardiac abnormalities in infants with congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 1975; 55: 485–492

2) Breckpot J, Thienpont B, Peeters H, et al: Array comparative genomic hybridization as a diagnostic tool for syndromic heart defects. J Pediatr 2010; 156: 810–817, 817.e1–817.e4

3) Carey AS, Liang L, Edwards J, et al: Effect of copy number variants on outcomes for infants with single ventricle heart defects. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2013; 6: 444–451

4) Mowat DR, Croaker GD, Cass DT, et al: Hirschsprung disease, microcephaly, mental retardation, and characteristic facial features: Delineation of a new syndrome and identification of a locus at chromosome 2q22–q23. Am J Med Genet 1998; 35: 617–623

5) Adam MP, Schelley S, Gallagher R, et al: Clinical features and management issues in Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Am J Med Genet A 2006; 140A: 2730–2741

6) Strenge S, Heinritz W, Zweier C, et al: Pulmonary artery sling and congenital tracheal stenosis in another patient with Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Am J Med Genet A 2007; 143A: 1528–1530

7) Van de Putte T, Francis A, Nelles L, et al: Neural crest-specific removal of Zfhx1b in mouse leads to a wide range of neurocristopathies reminiscent of Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 2007; 16: 1423–1436

8) Bergwerff M, Verberne ME, DeRuiter MC, et al: Neural crest cell contribution to the developing circulatory system: Implications for vascular morphology? Circ Res 1998; 82: 221–231

9) Bourchany A, Giurgea I, Thevenon J, et al: Clinical spectrum of eye malformations in four patients with Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Am J Med Genet A 2015; 167: 1587–1592

10) Zweier C, Thiel CT, Dufke A, et al: Clinical and mutational spectrum of Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Eur J Med Genet 2005; 48: 97–111

11) Dastot-Le Moal F, Wilson M, Mowat D, et al: ZFHX1B mutations in patients with Mowat–Wilson syndrome. Hum Mutat 2007; 28: 313–321

12) Saunders CJ, Zhao W, Ardinger HH: Comprehensive ZEB2 gene analysis for Mowat–Wilson syndrome in a North American cohort: A suggested approach to molecular diagnostics. Am J Med Genet A 2009; 149A: 2527–2531

13) Vermeesch JR, Balikova I, Schrander-Stumpel C, et al: The causality of de novo copy number variants is overestimated. Eur J Hum Genet 2011; 19: 1112–1113

This page was created on 2018-06-13T14:59:56.933+09:00
This page was last modified on 2018-07-04T14:28:17.178+09:00