Talk:Pallister–Killian syndrome

errors?
I have a few concerns about the accuracy of this article.

The first being the suggestion that only skin cells have the error in genetic code causing the syndrome--if this were true, than only the skin would be affected. To have symptoms of other physical attributes & mental retardation there would have to be errors in the genetic code in those areas of the body as well.

Secondly, an amniocentesis involves removing amniotic fluid from around the fetus. This fluid is composed of many different things, one of them being shed epithelial (skin) cells. In fact, it is from these skin cells that most genetic testing from an amniocentesis is done. In fact, the 1st resource cited in this article states that PKS is suggested as a diagnosis if physical deformities are visible on ultrasound OR if indicated by chionic villi sampling or amniocentesis--which suggests that the genetic error is possible to detect from wither of these tests.

I am not an expert on this subject, but have some knowledge about genetic & obstetric tests. If someone has the answer to these concerns or can explain the seeming incongruencies I would greatly appreciate it. I just think that if information is going to be presented to people, it might as well be correct.

67.168.52.203 23:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See the sources. They say what is said in the article. The likelihood of the skin cells being analyzed is so low that the prenatal tests can almost never see PKS. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The information about detection methods for PKS is correct. Skin biopsies are the most reliable method of confirming the presence of affected cells, since -- due to mosaicism -- only some cells have the PKS trait. This may be due to the relative long life of skin cells. JeffJonez 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do You Know
Sorry, that "fact" is wrong. PKS does not exist only in skin cells, this is just where it is most easily detected. There is now a paper discussing blood-based detection, but I know that blood work was used as an initial indicator as early as 2004. (biopsies are the only conclusive method, based on the need (i believe) to culture/grow cells from a multi-cell sample.) Dr. Pallister once speculated that this might be due to cells with the PKS trait not propagating as well as those without it. There's also a fine grammar issue with the statement: Cells don't have PKS, people have PKS. Cells may have the genetic alteration that cause PKS. But this "fact" was way back in 2006, so I forgive. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add...
Pallister-Killian syndrome is NOT only mosaic. My first born had this condition and the extra isochromosome was in all of the tested cells. The doctors told me it was not mosaic. It WAS diagnosed via amniocentesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.181.166 (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please have your doctors document their findings. PKS is a very rare condition, so any new discovery is important. - JeffJonez (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PKS information
Unique, the rare chromosome disorder support group, has the most up-to-date information on PKS. http://www.rarechromo.org/html/home.asp Leaflet: http://www.rarechromo.org/information/Chromosome%2012/Pallister%20Killian%20FTNW.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.228.219 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While it's impossible to verify the claim that RARE has the "most up-to-date information on PKS", the survey responses in this PDF are quite interesting and speak clearly to the range of abilities of people with PKS, and the experiences of their caregivers. Thanks for sharing! - JeffJonez (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the PDF is from 2005, but again... a wealth of first-had experiences. - JeffJonez (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)