3.9 Article

Genetics of Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts

期刊

CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 73-91

出版社

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1597/10-178

关键词

candidate gene; genome-wide association study; nonsyndromic orofacial clefts; polymorphism; sequencing; single nucleotide association study

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P50 DE16215, R37 DE08559, P30 ES05606]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R37DE008559] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [P50DE016215] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [F31ES005606] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With an average worldwide prevalence of approximately 1.2/1000 live births, orofacial clefts are the most common craniofacial birth defects in humans. Like other complex disorders, these birth defects are thought to result from the complex interplay of multiple genes and environmental factors. Significant progress in the identification of underlying genes and pathways has benefited from large populations available for study, increased international collaboration, rapid advances in genotyping technology, and major improvements in analytic approaches. Here we review recent advances in genetic epidemiological approaches to complex traits and their applications to studies of nonsyndromic orofacial clefts. Our main aim is to bring together a discussion of new and previously identified candidate genes to create a more cohesive picture of interacting pathways that shape the human craniofacial region. In future directions, we highlight the need to search for copy number variants that affect gene dosage and rare variants that are possibly associated with a higher disease penetrance. In addition, sequencing of protein-coding regions in candidate genes and screening for genetic variation in noncoding regulatory elements will help advance this important area of research.

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

3.9
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