Do orofacial clefts represent different genetic entities?

Rudolf Reiter, Sibylle Brosch, Manuel Lüdeke, Elena Fischbein, Antje Rinckleb, Stephan Haase, Anke Schwandt, Anja Pickhard, Christiane Maier, Josef Högel, Walther Vogel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To contribute to the understanding of potential genetic differences between different cleft types. Method: Analysis of family history concerning cleft type and search for cleft-type-specific associations in candidate genes performed in 98 individuals from 98 families. Results: In a given family, the cleft type of a second case was more often identical to the index case than expected by chance. Each type of cleft (cleft lip [CL], cleft lip and palate [CLP], cleft palate only [CP], and submucous cleft palate only [SMCP]) was associated with different genes. Conclusion: Family history indicates some specificity of cleft types. The observed phenotype-genotype associations were compatible with this interpretation in that significant associations occurred with disjoint sets of genes in each cleft type. These observations indicate that CL, CLP, CP, and SMCP might represent genetically different entities.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)115-120
Number of pages6
JournalCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Volume52
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2015

Keywords

  • Family history
  • Genes
  • Orofacial clefts
  • Recurrence

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Do orofacial clefts represent different genetic entities?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this