| Literature DB >> 26398511 |
Priscila Falagan-Lotsch1, Talíria Silva Lopes1, Erika Calvano Küchler1, Patrícia Nivoloni Tannure1, Marcelo de Castro Costa2, Lidia Maria da Fonte de Amorim3, José Mauro Granjeiro4.
Abstract
Nonsyndromic oral clefts are considered a problem of public health in Brazil, presenting a multifactorial etiology that involves genetic and environmental components, such as maternal alcohol consumption. Several candidate genes have been investigated to identify some association with nonsyndromic clefts risk. The epidermal growth factor (EGF) gene is implicated in the normal craniofacial development and its functional +61 A>G polymorphism has been related to cancer susceptibility. It has been suggested that cancer and oral clefts may share the same molecular pathways.Objective Our goal was to evaluate the association between the EGF+61 A>G polymorphism and nonsyndromic oral clefts susceptibility.Material and Methods The case-control study included 218 cleft cases and 253 controls from Brazil. The control group was comprised of individuals without congenital malformations, dental anomalies and family history of clefts. The cleft phenotypes and subphenotypes were determined based on clinical examination. Genomic DNA was extracted from oral mucosa cells obtained by mouthwash. The EGF+61 A>G polymorphism genotype was determined by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism.Results We noticed the association between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and cleft occurrence. The A allele and AA genotype were over-represented in cleft cases compared with control group when we considered the bilateral cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL±P) cases, cleft cases with tooth agenesis and cleft cases presenting family history of cleft, but the differences were not statistically significant. Contradictorily, the G allele was higher in cleft palate only (CP) cases than in control group, showing a borderline p value. Comparing the different cleft phenotypes, we observed statistical differences between CP and CL±P cases. Our data suggest the EGF+61 A>G polymorphism was not related with nonsyndromic oral clefts susceptibility in a Brazilian population, but supported the different genetic background between CL±P and CP. Moreover, we confirmed the potential effect of maternal alcohol intake on cleft risk in our population.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26398511 PMCID: PMC4560499 DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720140517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Oral Sci ISSN: 1678-7757 Impact factor: 2.698
Descriptive characteristics of cleft patients and controls
| Population characteristics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleft | Controls (n=253) | p* | |
| (n=218) | |||
| Gender, n (%) | |||
| Female | 104 (47.7) | 138 (54.5) | 0.14 |
| Male | 114 (52.3) | 115 (45.5) | |
| Ethnicity, n (%) | |||
| Caucasian | 128 (58.7) | 153 (60.5) | 0.70 |
| African descent | 90 (41.3) | 100 (39.5) | |
| Mother's habits during pregnancy, n (%) | |||
| Cigarette smoking | 46 (21.1) | 37 (14.6) | 0.07 |
| Alcohol consumption | 26 (11.9) | 16 (6.3) |
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||
| (n=39) | (n=152) | (n=27) | |
| Cleft side, n (%) | |||
| Left | 24 (61.6) | 70 (46.1) | - |
| Right | 10 (25.6) | 33 (21.7) | - |
| Bilateral | 5 (12.8) | 49 (32.2) | - |
| Severity of cleft, n (%) | |||
| Complete | - | 148 (97.4) | 22 (81.5) |
| Incomplete | - | 4 (2.6) | 5 (18.5) |
| Associated tooth agenesis, n (%) | 4 (10.5) | 22 (14.4) | 2 (7.4) |
| Positive cleft family history, n (%) | 8 (21.1) | 38 (24.8) | 4 (14.8) |
*Fisher's exact test
CL: cleft lip; CLP: cleft lip and palate; CP: cleft palate only
Distribution of cleft type according to gender
| Cleft type | CL | CLP | CP | p* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | (n=39) | (n=152) | (n=27) | |
| Males, n (%) | 16 (41.0) | 89 (58.6) | 9 (33.3) | |
|
| ||||
| Females, n (%) | 23 (59.0) | 63 (41.4) | 18 (66.7) |
*Chi-square test
CL versus CLP: p=0.07 (Fisher's exact test)
CL versus CP: p=0.61 (Fisher's exact test)
CLP versus CP: (Fisher's exact test)
CL: cleft lip; CLP: cleft lip and palate; CP: cleft palate only
Figure 1PCR-RFLP of EGF+61 A>G polymorphism. Agarose gel electrophoresis of EGF DNA fragments stained with ethidium bromide. Lane 1:100bp DNA Ladder; Lanes 2-5, 8 and 9: heterozygous AG; Lanes 6 and 7: homozygous AA; Lane 10: homozygous GG. PCR-RFLP: polymerase chain reaction - restriction fragment length polymorphism; EGF: epidermal growth factor
Association between EGF+61 A>G polymorphism and clefts risk
| Subjects | n | Alleles n (%) | p* | OR (95%CI) | Genotypes n (%) | p* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | G | AA | AG | GG | |||||
| Controls | 253 | 252 (49.8) | 254 (50.2) | - | Reference | 60 (23.7) | 132 (52.2) | 61 (24.1) | |
| All Clefts | 218 | 224 (51.4) | 212 (48.6) | 0.65 | 1.06 (0.82-1.38) | 52 (23.9) | 120 (55.0) | 46 (21.1) | 0.72 |
| Cleft Type | |||||||||
| CL±P | 191 | 201 (52.6) | 181 (47.4) | 0.42 | 1.12 (0.86-1.46) | 50 (26.2) | 101 (52.9) | 40 (20.9) | 0.68 |
| CP | 27 | 23 (42.6) | 31 (57.4) | 0.32 | 0.75 (0.42-1.32) | 2 (7.4) | 19 (70.4) | 6 (22.2) | 0.11 |
| Cleft Subphenotype | |||||||||
| Bilateral CL±P | 54 | 59 (54.6) | 49 (45.4) | 0.40 | 0.82 (0.54-1.25) | 16 (29.6) | 27(50.0) | 11 (20.4) | 0.63 |
| Unilateral CL±P | 137 | 142 (51.8) | 132 (48.2) | 0.60 | 0.92 (0.69-1.24) | 34 (24.8) | 74 (54.0) | 29 (21.2) | 0.80 |
| Left CL±P | 94 | 98 (52.1) | 90 (47.9) | 0.61 | 0.91 (0.65-1.27) | 20 (21.3) | 58 (61.7) | 16 (17.0) | 0.24 |
| Right CL±P | 43 | 44 (51.2) | 42 (48.8) | 0.91 | 0.93 (0.60-1.50) | 14 (32.6) | 16 (37.2) | 13 (30.2) | 0.19 |
| Cleft with tooth agenesis | 28 | 31 (55.4) | 25 (44.6) | 0.48 | 1.25 (0.72-2.18) | 8 (28.6) | 15 (53.6) | 5 (17.8) | 0.71 |
*Fisher’s exact test or chi-square test
EGF: epidermal growth factor; CL±P: cleft lip+cleft lip and palate excluding cleft palate only; CP: cleft palate only