Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Uncovering the phenotypic consequences of multi-locus imprinting disturbances using genome-wide methylation analysis in genomic imprinting disorders

  • Hwa Young Kim,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

  • Choong Ho Shin,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

  • Chang Ho Shin,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Orthopaedics, Division of Pediatric Orthopedics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

  • Jung Min Ko

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Genetics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, Rare Disease Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea


Imprinted genes are regulated by DNA methylation of imprinted differentially methylated regions (iDMRs). An increasing number of patients with congenital imprinting disorders (IDs) exhibit aberrant methylation at multiple imprinted loci, multi-locus imprinting disturbance (MLID). We examined MLID and its possible impact on clinical features in patients with IDs. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis (GWMA) using blood leukocyte DNA was performed on 13 patients with Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), two patients with Silver–Russell syndrome (SRS), and four controls. HumanMethylation850 BeadChip analysis for 77 iDMRs (809 CpG sites) identified three patients with BWS and one patient with SRS showing additional hypomethylation, other than the disease-related iDMRs, suggestive of MLID. Two regions were aberrantly methylated in at least two patients with BWS showing MLID: PPIEL locus (chromosome 1: 39559298 to 39559744), and FAM50B locus (chromosome 6: 3849096 to 3849469). All patients with BWS- and SRS-MLID did not show any other clinical characteristics associated with additional involved iDMRs. Exome analysis in three patients with BWS who exhibited multiple hypomethylation did not identify any causative variant related to MLID. This study indicates that a genome-wide approach can unravel MLID in patients with an apparently isolated ID. Patients with MLID showed only clinical features related to the original IDs. Long-term follow-up studies in larger cohorts are warranted to evaluate any possible phenotypic consequences of other disturbed imprinted loci.


Genomic imprinting is an epigenetic regulatory mechanism, leading to a parent-of-origin-specific expression of a small subset of genes [1]. The life cycle of the genomic imprints in mammals consists of three stages: establishment of parental imprinting marks in the germline during gametogenesis, imprint maintenance through fertilization and early embryonic development, and erasure of imprints in primordial germ cells [2]. Dysregulation at one of these stages results in disturbances in expression of the imprinted genes, leading to imprinting disorders (IDs) [3]. The majority of the imprinted genes are found in clusters that contain CpG-rich regions with DNA methylation on the non-expressed allele, imprinted differentially methylated regions (iDMRs) [4]. Primary methylation defects at some well characterized iDMRs are responsible for 12 clinically characterized IDs in humans, majority of which show common clinical phenotypes of aberrant pre- and/or postnatal growth [5].

Imprinting disturbances in the chromosome 11p15.5 region, harboring two imprinted domains controlled by its own imprinting control regions (ICRs) (ICR1 for H19/IGF2:IG-DMR and ICR2 for KCNQ1OT1:TSS-DMR), are involved in two clinically opposing growth disorders: Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome (BWS, OMIM #130650), an overgrowth disorder, and Silver–Russell syndrome (SRS, OMIM #180860), a growth retardation disorder [2]. Loss of methylation (LoM) at ICR1 (IC1-LoM) triggers SRS in 30%–60% of cases, while LoM at ICR2 (IC2-LoM) and gain of methylation (GoM) at ICR1 (IC1-GoM) accounts for 50% and 5% of cases with BWS, respectively. In addition, paternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 11 and maternal UPD for chromosome 7 are present in 20% of BWS and 5%–10% of SRS, respectively [6, 7].

Current diagnostic techniques in IDs routinely assess disturbances at single, disease-associated regions based on distinct clinical findings. However, a growing number of patients with 11p15-related growth disorders have been reported to exhibit multi-locus imprinting disturbance (MLID), that is, abnormal methylation in other imprinting domains besides the disease-specific locus [8, 9]. Observations of MLID suggested the involvement of trans-acting factors in regulating imprinting marks involved in the establishment or post-fertilization imprint maintenance [10]. While several causative genes have been identified in a few patients with MLID, the underlying genetic etiology remains unknown in the majority of patients with MLID [1115].

The phenotypic consequences of MLID remains controversial. Although most previously reported patients with MLID present only with clinical features of the original IDs, several studies reported peculiar features in patients with BWS and SRS showing MLID [9, 16]. According to recent data from 11 laboratories, the detection rates of MLID using commercial methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) kits were 12.7% in BWS with IC2-LoM, and 5.1% in SRS with IC1-LoM, but multi-locus tests were not conducted in all patients [17]. Currently, genome-wide methylation arrays (GWMA) have become possible, enabling exhaustively detect MLID in patients with ID [1820]. In the present study, we investigated the presence of MLID and its possible clinical impact in patients with BWS and SRS using GWMA.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Seoul National University Hospital (IRB Number: 2106-120-1230). All participants and their parents provided written informed consent prior to the study enrollment.


Thirteen patients with BWS and two patients with SRS were included. Epimutations at the chromosome 11p15.5 imprinting region were confirmed in all patients using MS-MLPA and bisulfite pyrosequencing analysis using leukocyte genomic DNA as previously described [21]. MS-MLPA was conducted using a SALSA MLPA kit (ME030 BWS/SRS, MRS Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Targeted bisulfite pyrosequencing assays covering four and seven consecutive CpG sites for ICR1 and ICR2, respectively, were performed using a PyroMark Q24 pyrosequencer (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) (S1 Table). Methylation levels were calculated as a percentage of methylated cytosine [%mC = mC/(mC+C)] for each CpG site using PyroMark Q24 Software (v.1.0.10; Qiagen). The standard deviation scores (SDS) of altered DNA methylation level (%mC) at ICR1 or ICR2 in patients with BWS and SRS was calculated based on the average DNA methylation level detected in 20 samples from age- and sex-matched controls.

For patients with BWS, the clinical score was calculated using the BWS consensus scoring system: 2 points per each cardinal features (macroglossia, exomphalos, lateralized overgrowth, multifocal Wilms tumor, prolonged hyperinsulinism, distinct pathologic findings), and 1 point per each suggestive features (large for gestational age, facial naevus flammeus, polyhydramnios or placentomegaly, ear creases or pits, transient hypoglycemia, embryonal tumors, nephromegaly or hepatomegaly and umbilical hernias or diastasis recti) [6]. Patients with score of ≥4 were regarded as classical BWS. For patients with SRS, the clinical score was calculated using the Netchine-Harbison clinical scoring system (NH–CSS), including small for gestational age, postnatal growth failure, relative macrocephaly at birth, protruding forehead, body asymmetry, feeding difficulties and/or low body mass index [7]. Age- and sex- specific SDS for serial growth parameters including height, weight, head circumference, and/or body mass index were assigned based on Fenton growth references at birth [22] and 2017 Korean National Growth Charts at postnatally [23]. Overgrowth or undergrowth were defined as height or weight greater than or less than two standard deviations compared to age- and sex- matched controls [6, 7]. Developmental and pubertal status was evaluated by a clinical geneticist and an endocrinologist, respectively. Skeletal abnormalities, including leg length discrepancy, scoliosis, and thoracic deformity, were assessed by an orthopedic surgeon using x-ray images. Clinical data for other phenotypes, including cardiac, gastrointestinal, and central nervous system anomalies, were retrospectively collected from medical records.

GWMA and data analysis

A peripheral blood sample (5 mL) was collected in each participant at initial visit, and genomic DNA was extracted from all types of peripheral blood leukocytes including granular and agranular leukocytes using the DNA isolation kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). GWMA was performed in 13 patients with BWS, two patients with SRS, and four healthy children controls. Sodium bisulfite conversion of genomic DNA was conducted using an EZ DNA Methylation Kit (Zymo Research). After bisulfite conversion, each sample was whole-genome amplified, enzymatically fragmented, and applied to the Illumina HumanMethylation850 BeadChip (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), which contains probes at more than 850,000 CpG loci. The amplified DNA was annealed to allele-specific primers linked to two individual bead types, which correspond to each CpG locus—one methylated (C) and one unmethylated (T). After single-base extension using DNP- and biotin-labeled ddNTPs, the array was fluorescently labeled, followed by washing and coating. The Illumina BeadArray Reader, and Illumina GenomeStudio v. 2011.1 were used for image reading and extracting image intensities. The location of the CpG relative to UCSC CGI was assigned to each probe; shores (sequences of 0–2 kb from the CGI), shelves (sequences 2–4 kb from the CGI), and open sea (sequences located outside these regions) [24]. The CpGs were functionally classified as proximal promoters (CpGs located within 200 or 1500 bp upstream of transcription start sites, exon 1, and 5′ UTRs), 3′ UTRs, gene bodies, and intergenic regions [24]. Arrays were processed at Macrogen (Seoul, Korea) by following the manufacturer’s instructions.

The β values were extracted for each CpG by subtracting background intensity computed from negative controls and taking the ratio of the methylated signal intensity to the combined intensity of methylated and unmethylated signals ranging from 0 (no methylation) to 1 (100% methylation). From 865,918 CpGs in total, 865,544 CpGs were detected by detection P-value of <0.05. As a quality control step, we eliminated probes associated with single-nucleotide polymorphism, cross-hybridization probes, and probes that corresponded to the X or Y chromosome from the dataset, leaving 745,915 CpGs to be analyzed. The Beta Mixture Quantile (BMIQ) normalization of filtered data was conducted to reduce assay bias [25]. To confirm the abnormal methylation levels of disease-specific iDMRs and detect MLID in each patient, the Crawford–Howell t-test was performed using preprocessed data [26]. For 809 CpGs on 77 iDMRs defined by Monk [27] and Joshi [28], the DNA methylation level difference (delta beta, Δβ) was calculated by subtracting mean β value of the control group from β value of each patient. Differentially methylated position (DMP) was defined as the absolute value of Δβ (|Δβ|) of >0.2 (>20% difference in DNA methylation) and P-value of <0.05. Aberrantly methylated iDMRs were defined as iDMRs showing differentially methylated levels in at least two consecutive probes within iDMRs which included at least four significant probes [19]. The VTRNA2–1:DMR was considered as insignificant because it has been shown to be polymorphically imprinted in general population, showing frequent hypomethylation with various degrees [29]. We considered each patient as having MLID if showing aberrant methylation in one or more additional iDMRs other than the disease-related iDMRs.

Exome sequencing

Three samples from patients with BWS exhibiting MLID were subjected to whole-exome sequencing (Fig 1). The exome sequencing data of the patient were analyzed using SureSelectXT Human All Exon V5 (Agilent Technologies, CA, USA), and the library was prepared according to the manufacturer’s protocol. An Illumina HiSeq2500 platform was used for library sequencing with 2 × 151 paired-end reads. Reads were aligned to the human genome build 37 (hg19) using Burrows–Wheeler Aligner (v. 0.7.17), and PCR duplicates were filtered out using Picard software (v. 2.9.0). The binary alignment map (BAM) file was realigned and recalibrated using SAMtools (v. 1.9), and the Genome Analysis Toolkit (v. 4.1.2). Variants were called using HaplotypeCaller and annotated using SnpEff, ANNOVAR, and InterVar. Sequence variants were compared with databases such as Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), Human Gene Mutation Database, and ClinVar. For further analysis, variants with zero allele frequency in the gnomAD were selected for autosomal dominant genes, and variants with allele frequency <0.01% were selected for autosomal recessive genes. The low-frequency variants (allele frequency 0.05–0.25) were detected using MuTect2. Copy number variation and low-frequency variants were analyzed as described previously [30]. After variant classification using guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines, we considered pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants as causative variants [31]. Variant screening for candidate genes was performed and genes involved in imprinting establishment and maintenance during embryonic development were analyzed (S2 Table) [32, 33].

Fig 1. Flowchart of the molecular tests.

Molecular tests for patients with BWS (A) and patients with SRS (B). BWS, Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome; MS-MLPA, methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification; BP, bisulfite pyrosequencing; IC2, imprinting center 2; LoM, loss of methylation; IC1, imprinting center 1; GoM, gain of methylation; MLID, multi-locus imprinting disturbance; SRS, Silver–Russell syndrome.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables as counts and proportions. The group differences according to the MLID (mono-locus vs. multi-locus) were investigated using the Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v. 25.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) and R software v. 3.6.0 (The Comprehensive R Archive Network, Vienna, Austria; A P-value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


Subjects characteristics

Table 1 shows the clinical and molecular characteristics of 13 patients with BWS (six males, seven females), and two patients with SRS (one male, one female). The mean follow-up duration was 4.6 ± 3.2 years in BWS, and 9.0 ± 2.3 years in SRS. Patients with BWS comprised two different epigenotypes (12 IC2-LoM, one IC1-GoM) and all met the criteria for classical BWS (a score of ≥4). The mean SDS for height and weight at initial visit (at a mean age of 1.8 ± 2.4 years) in patients with BWS were +2.2 ± 1.6, and +1.9 ± 1.1, respectively. Two patients with SRS had the IC1-LoM epigenotype and both met more than four out of six NH–CSS features. The SDS for height and weight at initial visit were –4.2, and –3.4 in SRS1 (at 3.6 months of age), and –4.1, and –7.2 in SRS2 (at 4.1 years of age), respectively. Both patients with SRS were treated with growth hormone, starting at a mean age of 4.3 years at a dosage for small for gestational age (0.3 mg/kg/week). SRS2 received combination therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist due to advanced puberty.

Table 1. Clinical and molecular characteristics of patients.

Genome-wide alteration of DNA methylation

Hierarchical cluster analysis of the methylated region using GWMA identified 74 significant DMPs in 15 patients with ID compared with four healthy children controls: 29 (39.2%) hyper DMPs and 45 (60.8%) hypo DMPs. Patients with ID were generally classified into two categories based on the genome-wide methylation pattern: (1) category 1 of 12 patients with BWS (all with IC2-LoM); (2) category 2 of two patients with SRS (both with IC1-LoM) and one patient with BWS (with IC1-GoM) (Fig 2). In a single-sample analysis for each patient, the number of significantly hypermethylated DMPs per patient ranged from 175 (BWS8) to 17,035 (BWS7), while the number of significantly hypomethylated DMPs ranged from 375 (SRS2) to 3,760 (BWS7) (Table 2).

Fig 2. Hierarchical clustering of differentially methylated CpG sites in 15 ID patients versus four controls.

Methylation values are extracted from the 850K array. Clustering of 74 significant CpGs satisfying with the average DNA methylation level difference between groups >0.2 with a P value <0.05. For BWS patients, two epigenotypes are indicated by color (IC2-LoM, blue; IC1-GoM, orange). BWS, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome; SRS, Silver-Russell syndrome; C, control; IC2, imprinting center 2; LoM, loss of methylation; IC1, imprinting center 1; GoM, gain of methylation. aMulti-locus methylation disturbance.

When focusing on 809 CpGs in 77 iDMRs defined by Monk et al. [27] and Joshi et al. [28], a total of 232 CpGs in 17 iDMRs (two paternally and 15 maternally methylated) were identified as differentially methylated in patients with ID, compared with the control group (mean methylation level of 0.4–0.6). All patients with BWS and SRS showed aberrant methylation in disease-related iDMRs, which were consistent with those identified in targeting analysis using bisulfite pyrosequencing (Table 1). In addition, the GWMA data revealed 14 additional hypomethylation other than the disease-related iDMRs, suggesting MLID in four patients: three patients with BWS (BWS8, BWS9, and BWS12), and one patient with SRS (SRS1) (S3 Table).

Multi-locus methylation defects

Three patients with BWS-MLID (BWS8, BWS9, and BWS12) had two or more additional LoM-type epimutations at the maternally methylated iDMRs. In BWS9, MLID was the most extensive, with LoM at seven additional iDMRs (PPIEL:Ex1-DMR, DIRAS3:Ex2-DMR, NAP1L5:TSS-DMR, FAM50B:TSS-DMR, PLAGL1:alt-TSS-DMR, IGF1R:Int2-DMR, and WRB:alt-TSS-DMR) (Fig 3). A total of 102 CpGs in 12 additional iDMRs were hypomethylated in three patients with BWS-MLID; 52.9% in CpG islands (CGIs), 25.5% in CpG shores, and 21.6% in outside these regions (open sea) (S4 Table). Among those, 14 CpGs in two hypomethylated iDMRs were aberrantly methylated in at least two patients with BWS-MLID; PPIEL locus (chromosome 1: 39559298 to 39559744) with a methylation difference of 0.24 and 4 significant probes, and FAM50B locus (chromosome 6: 3849096 to 3849469) with a methylation difference of 0.26 and 10 significant probes. Relative to CpG context, 71.4% of the sites were in CGIs, and 28.6% were located in open sea (S5 Table). In SRS1 who showed MLID, LoM was identified at 58 CpGs in two additional iDMRs: paternally- and maternally methylated iDMRs (MEG3:TSS-DMR and PEG10:TSS-DMR, respectively); 69.0% in CGIs and 31.0% in CpG shores (S6 Table).

Fig 3. Methylation changes at differentially methylated iDMRs in ID patients.

Orange and blue boxes indicate hypermethylated and hypomethylated iDMRs, respectively. Numbers in the boxes indicate |Δβ| (number of probes). CHR, chromosome; iDMRs, imprinting-associated differentially methylated regions; BWS, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome; SRS, Silver-Russell syndrome; IC2, imprinting center 2; LoM, loss of methylation; IC1, imprinting center 1; GoM, gain of methylation.

Clinical features of patients with and without MLID

All patients with MLID showed the classical phenotype of BWS or SRS without any clinically distinguishable features (Table 1). BWS9 who showed additional LoM of PLAGL1:alt-TSS-DMR in 6q24.2, implicated in the etiology of transient neonatal diabetes mellitus-1 (OMIM #601410), did not exhibit hyperglycemia until 9.3 years of age. Likewise, there was not any synergic effect for growth failure in SRS1 who had additional LoM of MEG3:TSS-DMR in 14q32.2, which is molecularly corresponding to Temple syndrome (OMIM #616222). Among 12 patients with BWS with IC2-LoM, there were no significant differences in clinical features according to the presence of MLID, in terms of sex, mode of conception (assisted reproductive technique), parental age at conception, prenatal and postnatal growth parameters, BWS-related phenotypes, and clinical score (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparisons of clinical features of BWS patients with IC2-LoM with and without MLID.

Exome analysis of putative MLID-causative variants

In order to investigate the putative MLID-causative variants, whole-exome sequencing using blood leukocyte DNA was performed in three patients with BWS who exhibited multiple hypomethylation. No copy number variant was found in the exome data of three patients. In addition, no causative variants were identified among candidate genes, including KHDC3L, NLRP2, NLRP5, NLRP7, ZFP57 [32, 33].


Using GWMA, we found four patients with MLID (three BWS and one SRS). MLID was mostly revealed in LoM-type epimutations at the maternally methylated iDMRs, in accordance with previous studies [5, 8, 9, 3436]. LoM predominance at the maternally methylated iDMRs could be explained by the fact that the majority of iDMRs are of maternal origin [37]. It is also possible that the maternally imprinted loci may be more susceptible to LoM than paternally imprinted loci in the establishment and maintenance of methylation during gametogenesis [34, 38]. However, concurrent hypomethylation of both paternally- and maternally methylated iDMRs (MEG3 and PEG10, respectively) was observed in SRS1 in our study. Co-existence of paternal and maternal LoM was also reported in previous reports [8, 39, 40], which suggested the postzygotic origin of epigenetic defects, as opposed to occurrence in germ-line cells.

The involved iDMRs varied in our patients with MLID, supporting non-recurrent methylation defects in MLID [33]. All 12 additional iDMRs in our patients with BWS-MLID were previously described in patients with BWS, SRS, and other IDs showing MLID [9, 19, 20, 33, 39, 41]. Likewise, two additional iDMRs (MEG3 and PEG10) in our patient with SRS-MLID were also previously reported in patients with SRS showing MLID [16, 42]. Among three patients with BWS-MLID, we found two hypomethylated iDMRs (PPIEL:Ex1-DMR, and FAM50B:TSS-DMR) in at least two patients. Aberrant DNA methylation at PPIEL and FAM50B have been associated with bipolar disorder, and intellectual disability, respectively [18, 43]. However, the clinical consequence of these affected loci is uncertain because our patients with BWS-MLID did not exhibit these previously reported clinical features.

Our patients with BWS- and SRS-MLID did not show any other clinical features due to hypomethylation of other loci, implying an epi-dominant effect of one locus above the others in clinical phenotypes [8]. Likewise, most patients with MLID showed only clinical features related to the original IDs [8, 34, 44]. Nonetheless, several cases showed atypical phenotypes such as developmental delay and congenital anomalies [9, 13, 16, 33, 45]. This epigenotype–phenotype divergence in patients with MLID possibly reflects somatic mosaicism, that is, the degree of methylation disturbances at the critical CpGs within other iDMRs remained at a subclinical level in the target tissues [5]. However, the influence of additionally involved iDMRs cannot be completely excluded. As MLID-associated clinical signs may manifest as patients grow up, careful monitoring is warranted to determine the possible effect of additional disturbances. For example, patients with LoM at the PLAGL1 locus require monitoring for early-onset diabetes. Besides, routine screening for childhood cancers may be required in patients with LoM at the DIRAS3 iDMR, which is associated with imprinted tumor-associated genes [46].

In our study, no causative variants of MLID have been found in exome sequencing analysis in three probands with BWS who exhibited multiple LoM. Until now, variants affecting either zygotic or oocyte-derived trans-acting factors have rarely been reported in some patients with MLID or in their mothers [47]. In particular, recessive variants of ZFP57, which prevent demethylation of genomic iDMRs during early embryogenesis, have been identified in seven of 13 probands with TNDM showing MLID [13]. Maternal-effect variants affecting components of the subcortical maternal complex, which plays an important role in imprinting establishment, have also been reported in women with reproductive problems, such as hydatidiform mole and miscarriages, and in healthy women with offspring with MLID and IDs, including BWS [15, 48, 49]. Convincing evidence has been provided for the involvement of NLRP2, NLRP5, NLRP7, and KHDC3L in the etiology of IDs, while the role of other maternal-effect genes, including PADI6, OOEP, TLE6, UHRF1, and ZAR1 is not definitely established [48]. A detailed investigation in a large number of patients with MLID may provide further insights into the imprint acquisition and post-fertilization maintenance of imprinted DNA methylation.

This study has some limitations. First, we determined the methylation status in only blood leukocytes, and possible effect of tissue mosaicism could not be excluded. Second, our study focused only on the DNA methylation patterns analyzed in the 850K array. Methylation defects at other non-investigated regions may also involve the complex genome-wide methylation phenomenon. Third, due to the limited number of patients identified with MLID, and relatively short follow-up duration, the functional consequences of disruptions at other imprinted loci are still unclear. Nevertheless, this study was strengthened by the extensive analysis of the epigenome in deeply phenotyped patients with ID with proven epimutation. We have expanded the spectrum of epimutated iDMRs associated with MLID in patients with BWS and SRS.


Using GWMA, we identified MLID in three patients with BWS and one patient with SRS. Additional hypomethylated iDMRs varied in the number and degree of affected regions in individual patients. Patients with MLID did not show any clinically distinct characteristics. However, the long-term phenotypic impact of other disturbed imprinted loci remains to be elucidated via expansion of patient cohort.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Primers used for bisulfite pyrosequencing.


S2 Table. Candidate genes included in variant screening.


S3 Table. Significant differentially methylated regions in each patient with IDs, compared with the controls.


S4 Table. Additional differentially methylated CpG sites identified in BWS-MLID patients, compared with the controls.


S5 Table. Methylation changes in shared affected iDMRs in BWS-MLID patients.


S6 Table. Additional differentially methylated CpG sites identified in an SRS-MLID patient, compared with the controls.



We express our gratitude to the patients and their parents for their participation in the study.


  1. 1. Li Y, Sasaki H. Genomic imprinting in mammals: its life cycle, molecular mechanisms and reprogramming. Cell Res. 2011; 21(3):466–73. pmid:21283132
  2. 2. Demars J, Gicquel C. Epigenetic and genetic disturbance of the imprinted 11p15 region in Beckwith-Wiedemann and Silver-Russell syndromes. Clin Genet. 2012; 81(4):350–61. pmid:22150955
  3. 3. Soellner L, Monk D, Rezwan FI, Begemann M, Mackay D, Eggermann T. Congenital imprinting disorders: application of multilocus and high throughput methods to decipher new pathomechanisms and improve their management. Mol Cell Probes. 2015; 29(5):282–90. pmid:26070988
  4. 4. Da Silva-Santiago SC, Pacheco C, Rocha TC, Brasil SM, Pacheco AC, Silva MM, et al. The linked human imprintome v1.0: over 120 genes confirmed as imprinted impose a major review on previous censuses. Int J Data Min Bioinform. 2014; 10(3):329–56. pmid:25946867
  5. 5. Soellner L, Begemann M, Mackay DJ, Gronskov K, Tumer Z, Maher ER, et al. Recent advances in imprinting disorders. Clin Genet. 2017; 91(1):3–13. pmid:27363536
  6. 6. Brioude F, Kalish JM, Mussa A, Foster AC, Bliek J, Ferrero GB, et al. Expert consensus document: clinical and molecular diagnosis, screening and management of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome: an international consensus statement. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018; 14(4):229–49. pmid:29377879
  7. 7. Wakeling EL, Brioude F, Lokulo-Sodipe O, O’Connell SM, Salem J, Bliek J, et al. Diagnosis and management of Silver-Russell syndrome: first international consensus statement. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017; 13(2):105–24. pmid:27585961
  8. 8. Azzi S, Rossignol S, Steunou V, Sas T, Thibaud N, Danton F, et al. Multilocus methylation analysis in a large cohort of 11p15-related foetal growth disorders (Russell Silver and Beckwith Wiedemann syndromes) reveals simultaneous loss of methylation at paternal and maternal imprinted loci. Hum Mol Genet. 2009; 18(24):4724–33. pmid:19755383
  9. 9. Bliek J, Verde G, Callaway J, Maas SM, De Crescenzo A, Sparago A, et al. Hypomethylation at multiple maternally methylated imprinted regions including PLAGL1 and GNAS loci in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 17(5):611–9. pmid:19092779
  10. 10. Eggermann T, Leisten I, Binder G, Begemann M, Spengler S. Disturbed methylation at multiple imprinted loci: an increasing observation in imprinting disorders. Epigenomics. 2011; 3(5):625–37. pmid:22126250
  11. 11. Meyer E, Lim D, Pasha S, Tee LJ, Rahman F, Yates JR, et al. Germline mutation in NLRP2 (NALP2) in a familial imprinting disorder (Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome). PLoS Genet. 2009; 5(3):e1000423. pmid:19300480
  12. 12. Docherty LE, Rezwan FI, Poole RL, Turner CL, Kivuva E, Maher ER, et al. Mutations in NLRP5 are associated with reproductive wastage and multilocus imprinting disorders in humans. Nat Commun. 2015; 6:8086. pmid:26323243
  13. 13. Mackay DJ, Callaway JL, Marks SM, White HE, Acerini CL, Boonen SE, et al. Hypomethylation of multiple imprinted loci in individuals with transient neonatal diabetes is associated with mutations in ZFP57. Nat Genet. 2008; 40(8):949–51. pmid:18622393.
  14. 14. Murdoch S, Djuric U, Mazhar B, Seoud M, Khan R, Kuick R, et al. Mutations in NALP7 cause recurrent hydatidiform moles and reproductive wastage in humans. Nat Genet. 2006; 38(3):300–2. pmid:16462743
  15. 15. Parry DA, Logan CV, Hayward BE, Shires M, Landolsi H, Diggle C, et al. Mutations causing familial biparental hydatidiform mole implicate c6orf221 as a possible regulator of genomic imprinting in the human oocyte. Am J Hum Genet. 2011; 89(3):451–8. pmid:21885028
  16. 16. Poole RL, Docherty LE, Al Sayegh A, Caliebe A, Turner C, Baple E, et al. Targeted methylation testing of a patient cohort broadens the epigenetic and clinical description of imprinting disorders. Am J Med Genet A. 2013; 161A(9):2174–82. pmid:23913548
  17. 17. Mackay D, Bliek J, Kagami M, Tenorio-Castano J, Pereda A, Brioude F, et al. First step towards a consensus strategy for multi-locus diagnostic testing of imprinting disorders. Clin Epigenetics. 2022; 14(1):143. pmid:36345041
  18. 18. Aref-Eshghi E, Schenkel LC, Lin H, Skinner C, Ainsworth P, Pare G, et al. Clinical validation of a genome-wide DNA methylation assay for molecular diagnosis of imprinting disorders. J Mol Diagn. 2017; 19(6):848–56. pmid:28807811
  19. 19. Docherty LE, Rezwan FI, Poole RL, Jagoe H, Lake H, Lockett GA, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of patients with imprinting disorders identifies differentially methylated regions associated with novel candidate imprinted genes. J Med Genet. 2014; 51(4):229–38. pmid:24501229
  20. 20. Krzyzewska IM, Alders M, Maas SM, Bliek J, Venema A, Henneman P, et al. Genome-wide methylation profiling of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome patients without molecular confirmation after routine diagnostics. Clin Epigenetics. 2019; 11(1):53. pmid:30898153
  21. 21. Kim HY, Shin CH, Lee YA, Shin CH, Kim GH, Ko JM. Deciphering Epigenetic Backgrounds in a Korean Cohort with Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome. Ann Lab Med. 2022;42(6):668–77. pmid:35765875
  22. 22. Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013; 13:59. pmid:23601190
  23. 23. Kim JH, Yun S, Hwang SS, Shim JO, Chae HW, Lee YJ, et al. The 2017 Korean National Growth Charts for children and adolescents: development, improvement, and prospects. Korean J Pediatr. 2018; 61(5):135–49. pmid:29853938
  24. 24. Moran S, Arribas C, Esteller M. Validation of a DNA methylation microarray for 850,000 CpG sites of the human genome enriched in enhancer sequences. Epigenomics. 2016; 8(3):389–99. pmid:26673039
  25. 25. Teschendorff AE, Marabita F, Lechner M, Bartlett T, Tegner J, Gomez-Cabrero D, et al. A beta-mixture quantile normalization method for correcting probe design bias in Illumina Infinium 450 k DNA methylation data. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(2):189–96. pmid:23175756
  26. 26. Rezwan FI, Docherty LE, Poole RL, Lockett GA, Arshad SH, Holloway JW, et al. A statistical method for single sample analysis of HumanMethylation450 array data: genome-wide methylation analysis of patients with imprinting disorders. Clin Epigenetics. 2015; 7(1):48. pmid:25918558
  27. 27. Monk D, Morales J, den Dunnen JT, Russo S, Court F, Prawitt D, et al. Recommendations for a nomenclature system for reporting methylation aberrations in imprinted domains. Epigenetics. 2018; 13(2):117–21. pmid:27911167
  28. 28. Joshi RS, Garg P, Zaitlen N, Lappalainen T, Watson CT, Azam N, et al. DNA methylation profiling of uniparental disomy subjects provides a map of parental epigenetic bias in the human genome. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99(3):555–66. pmid:27569549
  29. 29. Marttila S, Tamminen H, Rajic S, Mishra PP, Lehtimaki T, Raitakari O, et al. Methylation status of VTRNA2-1/nc886 is stable across populations, monozygotic twin pairs and in majority of tissues. Epigenomics. 2022; 14(18):1105–24. pmid:36200237
  30. 30. Jang SS, Kim SY, Kim H, Hwang H, Chae JH, Kim KJ, et al. Diagnostic yield of epilepsy panel testing in patients with seizure onset within the first year of life. Front Neurol. 2019; 10:988. pmid:31572294
  31. 31. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015; 17(5):405–24. pmid:25741868
  32. 32. Kelsey G, Feil R. New insights into establishment and maintenance of DNA methylation imprints in mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013;368(1609):20110336. pmid:23166397
  33. 33. Fontana L, Bedeschi MF, Maitz S, Cereda A, Fare C, Motta S, et al. Characterization of multi-locus imprinting disturbances and underlying genetic defects in patients with chromosome 11p15.5 related imprinting disorders. Epigenetics. 2018; 13(9):897–909. pmid:30221575
  34. 34. Maeda T, Higashimoto K, Jozaki K, Yatsuki H, Nakabayashi K, Makita Y, et al. Comprehensive and quantitative multilocus methylation analysis reveals the susceptibility of specific imprinted differentially methylated regions to aberrant methylation in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome with epimutations. Genet Med. 2014; 16(12):903–12. pmid:24810686
  35. 35. Eggermann T, Bruck J, Knopp C, Fekete G, Kratz C, Tasic V, et al. Need for a precise molecular diagnosis in Beckwith-Wiedemann and Silver-Russell syndrome: what has to be considered and why it is important. J Mol Med (Berl). 2020; 98(10):1447–55. pmid:32839827
  36. 36. Eggermann T, Heilsberg AK, Bens S, Siebert R, Beygo J, Buiting K, et al. Additional molecular findings in 11p15-associated imprinting disorders: an urgent need for multi-locus testing. J Mol Med (Berl). 2014; 92(7):769–77. pmid:24658748
  37. 37. Court F, Tayama C, Romanelli V, Martin-Trujillo A, Iglesias-Platas I, Okamura K, et al. Genome-wide parent-of-origin DNA methylation analysis reveals the intricacies of human imprinting and suggests a germline methylation-independent mechanism of establishment. Genome Res. 2014; 24(4):554–69. pmid:24402520
  38. 38. Kaneda M, Okano M, Hata K, Sado T, Tsujimoto N, Li E, et al. Essential role for de novo DNA methyltransferase Dnmt3a in paternal and maternal imprinting. Nature. 2004; 429(6994):900–3. pmid:15215868
  39. 39. Court F, Martin-Trujillo A, Romanelli V, Garin I, Iglesias-Platas I, Salafsky I, et al. Genome-wide allelic methylation analysis reveals disease-specific susceptibility to multiple methylation defects in imprinting syndromes. Hum Mutat. 2013; 34(4):595–602. pmid:23335487
  40. 40. Ishida M, Moore GE. The role of imprinted genes in humans. Mol Aspects Med. 2013; 34(4):826–40. pmid:22771538
  41. 41. Bak M, Boonen SE, Dahl C, Hahnemann JM, Mackay DJ, Tumer Z, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of transient neonatal diabetes type 1 patients with mutations in ZFP57. BMC Med Genet. 2016; 17:29. pmid:27075368
  42. 42. Turner CL, Mackay DM, Callaway JL, Docherty LE, Poole RL, Bullman H, et al. Methylation analysis of 79 patients with growth restriction reveals novel patterns of methylation change at imprinted loci. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 18(6):648–55. pmid:20104244
  43. 43. Kuratomi G, Iwamoto K, Bundo M, Kusumi I, Kato N, Iwata N, et al. Aberrant DNA methylation associated with bipolar disorder identified from discordant monozygotic twins. Mol Psychiatry. 2008; 13(4):429–41. pmid:17471289
  44. 44. Kagami M, Matsubara K, Nakabayashi K, Nakamura A, Sano S, Okamura K, et al. Genome-wide multilocus imprinting disturbance analysis in Temple syndrome and Kagami-Ogata syndrome. Genet Med. 2017; 19(4):476–82. pmid:27632690
  45. 45. Begemann M, Rezwan FI, Beygo J, Docherty LE, Kolarova J, Schroeder C, et al. Maternal variants in NLRP and other maternal effect proteins are associated with multilocus imprinting disturbance in offspring. J Med Genet. 2018; 55(7):497–504. pmid:29574422
  46. 46. Bildik G, Liang X, Sutton MN, Bast RC Jr., Lu Z. DIRAS3: An imprinted tumor suppressor gene that regulates RAS and PI3K-driven cancer growth, motility, autophagy, and tumor dormancy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2022; 21(1):25–37. pmid:34667114
  47. 47. Monk D, Mackay DJG, Eggermann T, Maher ER, Riccio A. Genomic imprinting disorders: lessons on how genome, epigenome and environment interact. Nat Rev Genet. 2019; 20(4):235–48. pmid:30647469
  48. 48. Elbracht M, Mackay D, Begemann M, Kagan KO, Eggermann T. Disturbed genomic imprinting and its relevance for human reproduction: causes and clinical consequences. Hum Reprod Update. 2020; 26(2):197–213. pmid:32068234
  49. 49. Sanchez-Delgado M, Martin-Trujillo A, Tayama C, Vidal E, Esteller M, Iglesias-Platas I, et al. Absence of maternal methylation in biparental hydatidiform moles from women with NLRP7 maternal-effect mutations reveals widespread placenta-specific imprinting. PLoS Genet. 2015; 11(11):e1005644. pmid:26544189