4.7 Article

Rare and Common Variants Conferring Risk of Tooth Agenesis

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 97, Issue 5, Pages 515-522

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034517750109

Keywords

genetics; molecular genetics; hypodontia; oligodontia; orofacial cleft(s); odontogenesis

Funding

  1. Swedish Society of Medicine
  2. Swedish Brain Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research) [R0IDE022905]
  4. Danish National Research Foundation
  5. Danish Regional Committees
  6. Pharmacy Foundation
  7. Egmont Foundation
  8. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
  9. Health Foundation
  10. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  11. Oak Foundation fellowship
  12. Novo Nordisk Foundation [12955]
  13. NIH [R00-DE025060, R01-DE016148, X01-HG007485]
  14. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE016148, R00DE025060, R01DE022905] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present association results from a large genome-wide association study of tooth agenesis (TA) as well as selective TA, including 1,944 subjects with congenitally missing teeth, excluding third molars, and 338,554 controls, all of European ancestry. We also tested the association of previously identified risk variants, for timing of tooth eruption and orofacial clefts, with TA. We report associations between TA and 9 novel risk variants. Five of these variants associate with selective TA, including a variant conferring risk of orofacial clefts. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of the genetic architecture of tooth development and disease. The few variants previously associated with TA were uncovered through candidate gene studies guided by mouse knockouts. Knowing the etiology and clinical features of TA is important for planning oral rehabilitation that often involves an interdisciplinary approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available