4.5 Article

A multicentric association study between 39 genes and nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate in a Brazilian population

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 16-20

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.07.026

关键词

Nonsyndromic cleft lip and cleft palate; Case-control association study; Single nucleotide polymorphism; KIF7; TCEB3

资金

  1. FAPESP
  2. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to use the TaqMan OpenArray system to evaluate associations between 39 genes and the etiology of nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate (NSCLP) in a Brazilian population. Material and methods: This case-control association study was designed with 80.11% statistical power according to logistic regression (GPOWER software). The case group had 182 patients with NSCLP enrolled in the Brazilian Database on Orofacial Clefts. The controls included 355 healthy individuals with no history of oral clefting in the past three generations. All samples were genotyped for 253 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (tagSNPs) in 39 genes, including two that had recently been associated with this process. The association analysis was performed using logistic regression and stepwise regression. The results were corrected for multiple testing [Bonferroni correction and False Discovery Rate (FDR)]. Results: Twenty-four SNPs in 16 genes were significantly associated with the etiology of NSCLP, including MSX1, SPRY1, MSX2, PRSS35, TFAP2A, SHH, VAX1, TBX10, WNT11, PAX9, BMP4, JAG2, AXIN2, DVL2, KIF7, and TCBE3. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that 11 genes contributed to 15.5% of the etiology of NSCLP in the sample. Conclusion: This is the first study to associate KIF7 and TCEB3 with the etiology of NSCLP. New technological approaches using the same design should help to identify further etiological susceptibility variants. (C) 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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