Background/Objectives: Factors modulating phenotypic variability in Rett syndrome (RTT, OMIM 312750) include X chromosome inactivation (XCI), type of MECP2 variant, and/or disease modifiers. Emerging evidence also points to multi-locus genetic variants. Understanding the phenotypic variability associated with multi-locus genetic diagnoses in individuals with RTT and MECP2-related disorders would be important not only for accurate diagnosis, risk stratification and clinical management but also to explain symptoms that might not be typically associated with RTT. Methods: We present a case series of five individuals with a diagnosis of RTT or an MECP2-related disorder with co-occurring genetic findings, including pathogenic variants, variants of unknown significance and chromosome duplications. Clinical features such as neurodevelopmental history and comorbid medical conditions were assessed alongside the genetic findings. Results: A review of 200 cases with RTT identified five cases (all females aged 7–27 years) with a co-occurring genetic finding. Each case harboured at least one additional genetic variant that included a beta thalassaemia trait, Calmodulin 3 (CALM3) missense variant, maternally inherited 22q12.3 to q13.1 duplication, 7p14.3 and Dynein Cytoplasmic 1 Heavy Chain 1 (DYNC1H1) variants of uncertain significance and a pathogenic Set Domain-containing protein 5 (SETD5) variant. A rare triple genetic finding was illustrated in a single case, combining MECP2, CALM3, and DYNC1H1 variants. Conclusions: This case series supports the premise that RTT and MECP2-related disorders exist in a more complex neurogenetic spectrum than previously defined. It also emphasises the complexity within MECP2-related disorders. They are not static, and in the context of severe treatment resistant epilepsy, MECP2 disorders can evolve over time, necessitating diagnostic reclassification. Although the co-occurrence of multiple genetic disorders in RTT and MECP2-related disorders is rare, these cases underscore the importance of considering cumulative genetic burden when evaluating individuals with atypical features or evolving neurodevelopmental phenotypes.
Singh et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: