Philip J Lupo1, Laura E Mitchell2, Mary M Jenkins3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, Texas. 3. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there is strong evidence that genetic risk factors play an important role in the etiologies of structural birth defects, compared to other diseases, there have been relatively few genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of these conditions. We reviewed the current landscape of GWAS conducted for birth defects, noting novel insights, and future directions. METHODS: This article reviews the literature with regard to GWAS of structural birth defects. Key defects included in this review include oral clefts, congenital heart defects (CHDs), biliary atresia, pyloric stenosis, hypospadias, craniosynostosis, and clubfoot. Additionally, other issues related to GWAS are considered, including the assessment of polygenic risk scores and issues related to genetic ancestry, as well as utilizing genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism array data to evaluate gene-environment interactions and Mendelian randomization. RESULTS: For some birth defects, including oral clefts and CHDs, several novel susceptibility loci have been identified and replicated through GWAS, including 8q24 for oral clefts, DGKK for hypospadias, and 4p16 for CHDs. Relatively common birth defects for which there are currently no published GWAS include neural tube defects, anotia/microtia, anophthalmia/microphthalmia, gastroschisis, and omphalocele. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GWAS have been successful in identifying several novel susceptibility genes and genomic regions for structural birth defects. These findings have provided new insights into the etiologies of these phenotypes. However, GWAS have been underutilized for understanding the genetic etiologies of several birth defects.
BACKGROUND: While there is strong evidence that genetic risk factors play an important role in the etiologies of structural birth defects, compared to other diseases, there have been relatively few genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of these conditions. We reviewed the current landscape of GWAS conducted for birth defects, noting novel insights, and future directions. METHODS: This article reviews the literature with regard to GWAS of structural birth defects. Key defects included in this review include oral clefts, congenital heart defects (CHDs), biliary atresia, pyloric stenosis, hypospadias, craniosynostosis, and clubfoot. Additionally, other issues related to GWAS are considered, including the assessment of polygenic risk scores and issues related to genetic ancestry, as well as utilizing genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism array data to evaluate gene-environment interactions and Mendelian randomization. RESULTS: For some birth defects, including oral clefts and CHDs, several novel susceptibility loci have been identified and replicated through GWAS, including 8q24 for oral clefts, DGKK for hypospadias, and 4p16 for CHDs. Relatively common birth defects for which there are currently no published GWAS include neural tube defects, anotia/microtia, anophthalmia/microphthalmia, gastroschisis, and omphalocele. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GWAS have been successful in identifying several novel susceptibility genes and genomic regions for structural birth defects. These findings have provided new insights into the etiologies of these phenotypes. However, GWAS have been underutilized for understanding the genetic etiologies of several birth defects.
Authors: Tian-Xiao Zhang; Gabe Haller; Peng Lin; David M Alvarado; Jacqueline T Hecht; Susan H Blanton; B Stephens Richards; John P Rice; Matthew B Dobbs; Christina A Gurnett Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Peter M Visscher; Naomi R Wray; Qian Zhang; Pamela Sklar; Mark I McCarthy; Matthew A Brown; Jian Yang Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Dhanya Ramachandran; Zhen Zeng; Adam E Locke; Jennifer G Mulle; Lora J H Bean; Tracie C Rosser; Kenneth J Dooley; Clifford L Cua; George T Capone; Roger H Reeves; Cheryl L Maslen; David J Cutler; Eleanor Feingold; Stephanie L Sherman; Michael E Zwick Journal: G3 (Bethesda) Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Tao Wu; Holger Schwender; Ingo Ruczinski; Jeffrey C Murray; Mary L Marazita; Ronald G Munger; Jacqueline B Hetmanski; Margaret M Parker; Ping Wang; Tanda Murray; Margaret Taub; Shuai Li; Richard J Redett; M Daniele Fallin; Kung Yee Liang; Yah Huei Wu-Chou; Samuel S Chong; Vincent Yeow; Xiaoqian Ye; Hong Wang; Shangzhi Huang; Ethylin W Jabs; Bing Shi; Allen J Wilcox; Sun Ha Jee; Alan F Scott; Terri H Beaty Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A J Agopian; Thanh T Hoang; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Hakon Hakonarson; Fadi I Musfee; Laura E Mitchell Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Fadi I Musfee; A J Agopian; Elizabeth Goldmuntz; Hakon Hakonarson; Bernice E Morrow; Deanne M Taylor; Martin Tristani-Firouzi; W Scott Watkins; Mark Yandell; Laura E Mitchell Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 4.141
Authors: Wanying Zhang; Sowmya Venkataraghavan; Jacqueline B Hetmanski; Elizabeth J Leslie; Mary L Marazita; Eleanor Feingold; Seth M Weinberg; Ingo Ruczinski; Margaret A Taub; Alan F Scott; Debashree Ray; Terri H Beaty Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-04-16
Authors: Yu-Jung Lin; Jeng-Yuan Chiou; Jing-Yang Huang; Pen-Hua Su; Jia-Yuh Chen; Hao-Jan Yang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ming Li; Chen Lyu; Manyan Huang; Catherine Do; Benjamin Tycko; Philip J Lupo; Stewart L MacLeod; Christopher E Randolph; Nianjun Liu; John S Witte; Charlotte A Hobbs Journal: BMC Genom Data Date: 2021-06-10