American Journal of (Neuropsychiatric Genetics) 114:689–692 (2002)

Letter to the Editor Williams Syndrome Cognitive Profile Also Characterizes Velocardiofacial/DiGeorge Syndrome

To the Editor: spatial constructive cognition evidenced in WBS.’’ The generality of this observation has been questioned by Williams-Beuren Syndrome (WBS) is a contiguous other investigators [Tassabehji et al., 1999], who found disorder characterized by a distinctive that three subjects with small deletions did not fit the facies, supravalvar aortic stenosis and other vascular criteria for the characteristic Williams Syndrome abnormalities, hypercalcemia, mild to moderate mental Cognitive Profile (WSCP, see Appendix) despite their retardation, a unique personality, and a specific cogni- LIMK1 deletions, leading them to conclude that LIMK1 tive profile [Jones and Smith, 1975; Bellugi et al., 1997; deletion may be a ‘‘necessary but not sufficient’’ condi- Mervis et al., 1999a]. This syndrome has been the tion for the WSCP. subject of extensive neuropsychological investigation, We have noted a strikingly similar cognitive and due to its notable pattern of neurocognitive ‘‘peaks and neuroanatomic profile in a large proportion of patients valleys,’’ involving relative strengths in language and with another, more common , facial processing, and profound impairment in spatial Velocardiofacial/DiGeorge Syndrome (22q11.2 Deletion cognition [Bellugi et al., 1994; Mervis et al., 1999b]. WBS Syndrome). This multiple-malformation syndrome is is caused by a hemizygous deletion of 1.5 megabases  characterized by structural and functional palate ano- at chromosome 7q11.23 (Fig. 1), which includes LIM- malies, conotruncal cardiac malformations, immuno- kinase1, a gene which is strongly expressed in the brain, deficiency, hypocalcemia, and typical facial anomalies particularly in the cerebral cortex [Frangiskakis et al., [Shprintzen et al., 1981; McDonald-McGinn et al., 1997]. 1996]. Mervis et al. [1999b] propose that 1) WBS is Similar to WBS, the disorder is also characterized by low associated with an identifiable and very distinctive IQ (with average full-scale IQ in the borderline range), cognitive profile, and 2) there is a specific genetic basis learning disabilities, and a characteristic cognitive and for the extreme difficulties with visuospatial construc- behavioral phenotype [Moss et al., 1999; Bearden et al., tion evidenced by most individuals with this syndrome. 2001]. In the majority of cases ( 90%), the syndrome They cite evidence from neuropsychological compari- results from a common three-Mb deletion at chromo- sons of patients with small deletions in the WBS critical some 22q11.2 (Fig. 2) [Carlson et al., 1997]. Applying the region to those with more standard deletions, in order to Wechsler [1991] equivalents of the psychometric criteria support the claim that ‘‘LIM-kinase1hemizygosity con- for the WSCP outlined by Mervis et al. [2000] to a group tributes to the difficulties individuals with Williams of 97 patients with the 22q Deletion Syndrome (22q DS), Syndrome evidence in visuospatial construction’’. Spe- we found that 61 of these patients meet all criteria for cifically, they find that those individuals with smaller the WSCP, yielding a sensitivity of .63 (Bearden and deletions that include , but not LIMK1, do not Wang, manuscript in preparation). While this is some- evidence any cognitive or personality aspects of the WBS what lower than the sensitivity of .88 for individuals phenotype. Mervis et al. [1999b] conclude from these with molecularly defined WBS, as reported by Mervis findings that ‘‘hemizygous deletion of LIMK1 on chro- et al. [2000], it is notable that the profile characterizes mosome 7 forms a foundation for the deficit in visuo- almost 2/3 of subjects with 22q11.2 deletions, despite the fact that these criteria were specifically tailored to best fit the putatively unique cognitive profile of WBS. Mervis and colleagues [2000] found that only four of 56 subjects in an IQ-matched contrast group of mixed etiology met the WSCP criteria (specificity .93), lead- Grant sponsor: NIH; Grant numbers: K08-HD01174, PO1- ¼ DC02027. ing them to conclude that these combined criteria depict *Correspondence to: Carrie E. Bearden, Ph.D., Children’s a profile that is ‘‘rare for individuals who do not have Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania, Center WBS.’’ In comparison to a contrast group of individuals for Cognitive Neuroscience, 3815 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA with 22q DS, however, the specificity of the WSCP 19104. E-mail: [email protected] criteria is quite poor (.37). Thus, while this cognitive Received 7 March 2002; Accepted 19 March 2002 profile may be unusual, our findings demonstrate that it DOI 10.1002/ajmg.10539 is not unique to WBS.

ß 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. 690 Bearden et al.

Fig. 1. Map of typical 1.5 Mb Williams syndrome deletion region (figure courtesy of M. Tassabehji). 

Other neurogenetic disorders (e.g., , potential candidate; this gene in the 22q11 region is Fragile X) have a similar pattern of cognitive abilities, expressed early during embryogenesis in a limited involving deficits in arithmetic and visuospatial abil- number of tissues [Gottlieb et al., 1997], and has been ities, with a relative strength in rote verbal memory hypothesized to be responsible for abnormal develop- [Reiss et al., 2000a; Kwon et al., 2001]. This pattern is ment of posterior brain regions in 22q DS [Eliez et al., commonly referred to as a ‘‘Nonverbal Learning Dis- 2001]. However, one notable difference between the order’’ [Rourke, 1995]. In the case of , characteristic neuroanatomy of WBS as compared to the characteristic cognitive impairments have been 22q DS is that subjects with Williams syndrome have attributed to the absence of the FMR1 gene product been reported to have significant increases in the volume (FMRP) in neurons, resulting in abnormal morphology of the posterior vermis and the neocerebellar hemi- of dendritic spines and a reduction in the length of spheres relative to normal controls [Jernigan et al., synapses in the cortex [Rudelli et al., 1985; Hinton et al., 1993; Wang and Bellugi, 1993], while 22q DS subjects 1991]. Turner syndrome, a character- show decreased volumes in cerebellar regions concomi- ized by partial or complete absence of one of the two tant with parietal—occipital reduction [Eliez et al., X chromosomes in a phenotypic female, is also char- 2000]. While subjects with WBS tend to be unusually acterized neuropsychologically by deficits in visual- socially outgoing and overly friendly [Jones et al., 2000], spatial/perceptual skills and [Pennington subjects with 22q DS are often described as withdrawn et al., 1985; Olney and Schaefer, 1998]. While the [Swillen et al., 1999] or as having flat affect [Bassett molecular etiology of these cognitive deficits is incom- et al., 1998], and have an elevated incidence of autistic- pletely understood in Turner syndrome, an MRI study of spectrum diagnoses [Niklasson et al., 2001]. In addition, females with this disorder found decreased proportional subjects with both Fragile X and Joubert syndrome also volumes primarily in the region of the parietal lobe, an typically possess social and communication problems area known to be linked to visuospatial function [Reiss resembling autistic behavior [Cohen et al., 1991; et al., 1995]. Holroyd et al., 1991], and these disorders have both Several studies have described a characteristic neu- have been shown to have decreased cerebellar vermal roanatomy of WBS, suggesting a possible underlying areas [Holroyd et al., 1991; Guerreiro et al., 1998]. Thus, pathophysiology for the cognitive deficits. Gross anato- comparison of neurogenetic disorders with prominent mical findings in WBS consist mainly of overall volume affective components suggests that there may be a reduction, with curtailment in the posterior-parietal possible relationship between posterior vermis size and and occipital regions [Galaburda and Bellugi, 2000; level of social drive. Reiss et al., 2000b]. Notably, similar volumetric reduc- In summary, while the cognitive and neuroanatomic tions in parietal and occipital brain regions have been profiles of WBS do indeed make it a compelling model for noted in the 22q DS population [Eliez et al., 2000; Kates elucidating complex gene-brain-behavior relationships, et al., 2001]. Thus, it is important to examine candidate cross-syndromecomparisonscanisolatecandidategenes neurodevelopmental in the 22q11.2 region that which may have similar distal effects on brain develop- might have similar effects. Goosecoid-like (GSCL) is one ment, resulting in similar neurocognitive patterns. Thus, we argue that 1) the ‘‘Williams syndrome cogni- tive profile’’ is not unique, and 2) the putative effects of hemizygous LIM-kinase1 deletion on cognition and neu- roanatomy are non-specific. Rather, LIMK1 may have similar effects on neural development as other candi- date neurodevelopmental genes, and hemizygosity for any of these genes may result in a final common pathway of anomalous brain development, which is the under- lying basis of this characteristic cognitive profile. While we fully agree with Mervis et al. [2000] in their conclu- sion that ‘‘this research demonstrates the importance of systematic phenotypic methods . . . to the efficient search for associations between behavior and genotype,’’ we Fig. 2. Map of typical 3 Mb Velocardiofacial/DiGeorge syndrome would like to highlight the additional point that compar- deletion region (figure courtesy of B.S. Emanuel). ison not only across domains, but across syndromes, is Letter to the Editor 691 critical to determine both the unique and shared effects Frangiskakis JM, Ewart AK, Morris CA, Mervis CB, Bertrand J, Robinson of particular genes on brain and cognition. BF, Klein BP, Ensing GJ, Everett LA, Green ED, Proschel C, Gutowski NJ, Noble M, Atkinson DL, Odelberg SJ, Keating MT. 1996. LIM- kinase1 hemizygosity implicated in impaired visuospatial constructive ACKNOWLEDGMENTS cognition. Cell 86:59–69. Galaburda AM, Bellugi U. 2000. V. Multi-level analysis of cortical Dr. Elaine Zackai, Dr. Beverly Emanuel, and Donna neuroanatomy in Williams syndrome. J Cogn Neurosci 12:74–88. McDonald-McGinn are gratefully acknowledged for Gottlieb S, Emanuel BS, Driscoll DA, Sellinger B, Wang Z, Roe B, Budarf their support. ML. 1997. The DiGeorge syndrome minimal critical region contains a goosecoid-like (GSCL) homeobox gene that is expressed early in human APPENDIX development. Am J Hum Genet 60:1194–1201. Guerreiro MM, Camargo EE, Kato M, Marques-de-Faria AP, Ciasca SM, 1 Criteria for WSCP [from Mervis et al., 2000] Guerreiro CA, Netto JR, Moura-Ribeiro MV. 1998. Fragile X syndrome. Clinical, electroencephalographic and neuroimaging characteristics. 1. Pattern-Construction T score < mean T score for core Arq Neuropsiquiatr 56:18–23. subtests Hinton VJ, Brown WT, Wisniewski K, Rudelli RD. 1991. Analysis of neocortex 2. Pattern-Construction T score < Digit-recall T score in three males with the fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Genet 41:289–294. 3. Pattern-Construction T score < 20th percentile Holroyd S, Reiss AL, Bryan RN. 1991. Autistic features in Joubert 4. T-score for either Digit Recall, Naming/Definitions, syndrome: a genetic disorder with agenesis of the cerebellar vermis. or Similarities, > 1st percentile Biol Psychiatry 29:287–294. Jernigan TL, Bellugi U, Sowell E, Doherty S, Hesselink JR. 1993. Cerebral morphologic distinctions between Williams and Down syndromes. Arch Additional Criteria Neurol 50:186–191. 1. Digit Recall T score > mean T score Jones KL, Smith DW. 1975. The Williams elfin facies syndrome. A new 2. Naming/Definitions T score > Pattern-Construction perspective. J Pediatr 86:718–723. Jones W, Bellugi U, Lai Z, Chiles M, Reilly J, Lincoln A, Adolphs R. 2000. II. T score Hypersociability in Williams syndrome. J Cogn Neurosci 12:30–46. 3. Similarities T score > Pattern-Construction T score Kates WR, Burnette CP, Jabs EW, Rutberg J, Murphy AM, Grados M, Geraghty M, Kaufmann WE, Pearlson GD. 2001. Regional cortical white REFERENCES matter reductions in velocardiofacial syndrome: a volumetric MRI analysis. Biol Psychiatry 49:677–684. Bassett AS, Hodgkinson K, Chow EW, Correia S, Scutt LE, Weksberg R. 1998. 22q11 deletion syndrome in adults with schizophrenia. Am J Med Kwon H, Menon V, Eliez S, Warsofsky IS, White CD, Dyer-Friedman J, Genet 81:328–337. Taylor AK, Glover GH, Reiss AL. 2001. Functional neuroanatomy of visuospatial working memory in fragile X syndrome: relation to Bearden CE, Woodin M, Wang PP, Moss E, McDonald-McGinn D, Zackai E, behavioral and molecular measures. Am J Psychiatry 158:1040–1051. Cannon TD. 2001. Neuropsychological function in the deletion syndrome: selective deficit in visual-spatial memory. J Clin Exp McDonald-McGinn DM, LaRossa D, Goldmuntz E, Sullivan K, Eicher P, Neuropsychol 23:447–464. Gerdes M, Moss E, Wang P, Solot C, Schultz P, Lynch D, Bingham P, Keenan G, Weinzimer S, Ming JE, Driscoll D, Clark BJ 3rd, Markowitz Bellugi U, Wang PP, Jernigan TL. 1994. Williams syndrome: an unusual R, Cohen A, Moshang T, Pasquariello P, Randall P, Emanuel BS, Zackai neuropsychological profile. In: Broman SH, Grafman J, editors. EH. 1997. The 22q11.2 deletion: screening, diagnostic workup, and Atypical cognitive deficits in developmental disorders: implications outcome of results; report on 181 patients. Genet Test 1:99–108. for brain function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p 23– 56. Mervis CB, Morris CA, Bertrand J, Robinson BF. 1999a. Williams syndrome: findings from an integrated program of research. In: Tager-Flusberg H, Bellugi U, Klima ES, Wang PP. 1997. Cognitive and neural development: editor. Vol. Neurodevelopmental disorders. Developmental cognitive clues from genetically based syndromes. In: Magnusson D, editor. The neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p 65–110. lifespan development of individuals: behavioral, neurobiological, and psychosocial perspectives: a synthesis. New York, NY: Cambridge Mervis CB, Robinson BF, Pani JR. 1999b. Visuospatial construction. Am J University Press. p 223–243. Hum Genet 65:1222–1229. Carlson C, Sirotkin H, Pandita R, Goldberg R, McKie J, Wadey R, Patanjali Mervis CB, Robinson BF, Bertrand J, Morris CA, Klein-Tasman BP, SR, Weissman SM, Anyane-Yeboa K, Warburton D, Scambler P, Armstrong SC. 2000. The Williams syndrome cognitive profile. Brain Shprintzen R, Kucherlapati R, Morrow BE. 1997. Molecular definition Cogn 44:604–628. of 22q11 deletions in 151 velo-cardio-facial syndrome patients. Am J Moss EM, Batshaw ML, Solot CB, Gerdes M, McDonald-McGinn DM, Hum Genet 61:620–629. Driscoll DA, Emanuel BS, Zackai EH, Wang PP. 1999. Psychoeduca- Cohen IL, Sudhalter V, Pfadt A, Jenkins EC, Brown WT, Vietze PM. 1991. tional profile of the 22q11.2 microdeletion: a complex pattern [see Why are autism and the fragile-X syndrome associated? Conceptual and comments]. J Pediatr 134:193–198. methodological issues. Am J Hum Genet 48:195–202. Niklasson L, Rasmussen P, Oskarsdottir S, Gillberg C. 2001. Neuropsychia- Eliez S, Schmitt JE, White CD, Reiss AL. 2000. Children and adolescents tric disorders in the 22q11 deletion syndrome. Genet Med 3:79–84. with velocardiofacial syndrome: a volumetric MRI study. Am J Psychiatry 157:409–415. Olney AH, Schaefer GB. 1998. Turner syndrome. Ear Nose Throat J 77:812. Eliez S, Schmitt JE, White CD, Wellis VG, Reiss AL. 2001. A quantitative Pennington BF, Heaton RK, Karzmark P, Pendleton MG, Lehman R, MRI study of posterior fossa development in velocardiofacial syndrome. Shucard DW. 1985. The neuropsychological phenotype in Turner Biol Psychiatry 49:540–546. syndrome. Cortex 21:391–404. Reiss AL, Freund LS, Baumgardner TL, Abrams MT, Denckla MB. 1995. Contribution of the FMR1 gene to human intellectual dysfunction. Nat Genet 11:331–334. 1Mervis et al. [2000] employed the Differential Abilities Scale Reiss AL, Eliez S, Schmitt JE, Patwardhan A, Haberecht M. 2000a. Brain (DAS) as their primary cognitive assessment measure, whereas imaging in neurogenetic conditions: realizing the potential of behavioral we administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children neurogenetics research. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 6:186–197. (WISC-III, 3rd edition). The DAS subtests (Pattern-Construction, Reiss AL, Eliez S, Schmitt JE, Straus E, Lai Z, Jones W, Bellugi U. 2000b. IV. Digit Recall, Naming/Definitions, and Similarities) were designed Neuroanatomy of Williams syndrome: a high-resolution MRI study. to be analogous to the Wechsler tests, and are highly correlated J Cogn Neurosci 12:65–73. with the respective WISC-III measures (Block Design, Digit Span, Rourke BP. 1995. Syndrome of nonverbal learning disabilities: neurodevel- Vocabulary, and Similarities, respectively). opmental manifestations. New York, NY: Guilford Press. p 1–50. 692 Bearden et al.

Rudelli RD, Brown WT, Wisniewski K, Jenkins EC, Laure-Kamionowska Wang PP, Bellugi U. 1993. Williams syndrome, , and M, Connell F, Wisniewski HM. 1985. Adult fragile X syndrome. Clinico- cognitive neuroscience. Am J Dis Child 147:1246–1251. neuropathologic findings. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 67:289–295. Wechsler D. 1991. Wechsler intelligence scale for children. 3rd ed. San Shaikh TM, Kurahashi H, Saitta SC, Hu P, Roe BA, Driscoll DA, McDonald- Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. McGinn DM, Zackai EH, Budarf ML, Emanuel BS. 2000. Chromosome 22- specific low copy repeats and the 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: genomic organization and deletion endpoint analysis. Hum Mol Genet 9:489–501. Shprintzen RJ, Goldberg RB, Young D, Wolford L. 1981. The velo-cardio- facial syndrome: a clinical and genetic analysis. 67:167–172. Swillen A, Devriendt K, Legius E, Prinzie P, Vogels A, Ghesquiere P, Fryns Carrie E. Bearden* JP. 1999. The behavioural phenotype in velo-cardio-facial syndrome Paul P. Wang (VCFS): from infancy to adolescence. Genet Couns 10:79–88. Tony J. Simon Tassabehji M, Metcalfe K, Karmiloff-Smith A, Carette MJ, Grant J, Dennis Department of Child Development N, Reardon W, Splitt M, Read AP, Donnai D. 1999. Williams syndrome: use of chromosomal microdeletions as a tool to dissect cognitive and The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia physical phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet 64:118–125. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania