4.4 Article

Whole Exome Sequencing of Distant Relatives in Multiplex Families Implicates Rare Variants in Candidate Genes for Oral Clefts

Journal

GENETICS
Volume 197, Issue 3, Pages 1039-+

Publisher

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.165225

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-DE-014581, U01-DE-018993, R01-DE-016148, P50-DE-016215]
  2. federal contract from the NIH [X01 HG006177, HHSN268200782096C]
  3. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec - Sante
  4. NIH [R01 GM083084]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A dozen genes/regions have been confirmed as genetic risk factors for oral clefts in human association and linkage studies, and animal models argue even more genes may be involved. Genomic sequencing studies should identify specific causal variants and may reveal additional genes as influencing risk to oral clefts, which have a complex and heterogeneous etiology. We conducted a whole exome sequencing (WES) study to search for potentially causal variants using affected relatives drawn from multiplex cleft families. Two or three affected second, third, and higher degree relatives from 55 multiplex families were sequenced. We examined rare single nucleotide variants (SNVs) shared by affected relatives in 348 recognized candidate genes. Exact probabilities that affected relatives would share these rare variants were calculated, given pedigree structures, and corrected for the number of variants tested. Five novel and potentially damaging SNVs shared by affected distant relatives were found and confirmed by Sanger sequencing. One damaging SNV in CDH1, shared by three affected second cousins from a single family, attained statistical significance (P = 0.02 after correcting for multiple tests). Family-based designs such as the one used in this WES study offer important advantages for identifying genes likely to be causing complex and heterogeneous disorders.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available