4.0 Review

The power of zebrafish models for understanding the co-occurrence of craniofacial and limb disorders

期刊

GENESIS
卷 59, 期 1-2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dvg.23407

关键词

craniofacial; human clinical genetics; limb; zebrafish model

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [NIH 1F31HD103368-01, NIH 1R03HD096320-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even though craniofacial and limb defects appear to have distinct gene regulatory networks, they often co-occur, suggesting commonalities between these two types of congenital anomalies. Using zebrafish models, studies can delve into the mechanisms of human syndromes to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of these deformities.
Craniofacial and limb defects are two of the most common congenital anomalies in the general population. Interestingly, these defects are not mutually exclusive. Many patients with craniofacial phenotypes, such as orofacial clefting and craniosynostosis, also present with limb defects, including polydactyly, syndactyly, brachydactyly, or ectrodactyly. The gene regulatory networks governing craniofacial and limb development initially seem distinct from one another, and yet these birth defects frequently occur together. Both developmental processes are highly conserved among vertebrates, and zebrafish have emerged as an advantageous model due to their high fecundity, relative ease of genetic manipulation, and transparency during development. Here we summarize studies that have used zebrafish models to study human syndromes that present with both craniofacial and limb phenotypes. We discuss the highly conserved processes of craniofacial and limb/fin development and describe recent zebrafish studies that have explored the function of genes associated with human syndromes with phenotypes in both structures. We attempt to identify commonalities between the two to help explain why craniofacial and limb anomalies often occur together.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据