4.1 Article

Risk variants in BMP4 promoters for nonsyndromic cleft lip/palate in a Chilean population

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-12-163

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Fund for Science and Technology Development of Chile (FONDECYT) [11090105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bone morphogenetic protein 4 gene (BMP4) plays a key role during maxillofacial development, since orofacial clefts are observed in animals when this gene is conditionally inactivated. We recently reported the existence of association between nonsyndromic cleft lip/palate (NSCLP) and BMP4 polymorphisms by detecting transmission deviations for haplotypes that include a region containing a BMP4 promoter in case-parent trios. The aim of the present study was to search for possible causal mutations within BMP4 promoters (BMP4.1 and BMP4.2). Methods: We analyzed the sequence of BMP4.1 and BMP4.2 in 167 Chilean NSCLP cases and 336 controls. Results: We detected three novel variants in BMP4.1 (c.-5514G > A, c.-5365C > T and c.-5049C > T) which could be considered as cleft risk factors due to their absence in controls. Additionally, rs2855530 G allele (BMP4.2) carriers showed an increased risk for NSCLP restricted to males (OR = 1.52; 95% C.I. = 1.07-2.15; p = 0.019). For this same SNP the dominant genotype model showed a higher frequency of G/G+G/C and a lower frequency of C/C in cases than controls in the total sample (p = 0.03) and in the male sample (p = 0.003). Bioinformatic prediction analysis showed that all the risk variants detected in this study could create new transcription factor binding motifs. Conclusions: The sex-dependent association between rs2855530 and NSCLP could indirectly be related to the differential gene expression observed between sexes in animal models. We concluded that risk variants detected herein could potentially alter BMP4 promoter activity in NSCLP. Further functional and developmental studies are necessary to support this hypothesis.

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

4.1
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