Abstract

Two large studies of case–parent trios ascertained through a proband with a non-syndromic orofacial cleft (OFC, which includes cleft lip and palate, cleft lip alone, or cleft palate alone) were used to test for possible gene–environment (G × E) interaction between genome-wide markers (both observed and imputed) and self-reported maternal exposure to smoking, alcohol consumption, and multivitamin supplementation during pregnancy. The parent studies were as follows: GENEVA, which included 1,939 case–parent trios recruited largely through treatment centers in Europe, the United States, and Asia, and 1,443 case–parent trios from the Pittsburgh Orofacial Cleft Study (POFC) also ascertained through a proband with an OFC including three major racial/ethnic groups (European, Asian, and Latin American). Exposure rates to these environmental risk factors (maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, and multivitamin supplementation) varied across studies and among racial/ethnic groups, creating substantial differences in power to detect G × E interaction, but the trio design should minimize spurious results due to population stratification. The GENEVA and POFC studies were analyzed separately, and a meta-analysis was conducted across both studies to test for G × E interaction using the 2 df test of gene and G × E interaction and the 1 df test for G × E interaction alone. The 2 df test confirmed effects for several recognized risk genes, suggesting modest G × E effects. This analysis did reveal suggestive evidence for G × Vitamin interaction for CASP9 on 1p36 located about 3 Mb from PAX7, a recognized risk gene. Several regions gave suggestive evidence of G × E interaction in the 1 df test. For example, for G × Smoking interaction, the 1 df test suggested markers in MUSK on 9q31.3 from meta-analysis. Markers near SLCO3A1 also showed suggestive evidence in the 1 df test for G × Alcohol interaction, and rs41117 near RETREG1 (a.k.a. FAM134B) also gave suggestive significance in the meta-analysis of the 1 df test for G × Vitamin interaction. While it remains quite difficult to obtain definitive evidence for G × E interaction in genome-wide studies, perhaps due to small effect sizes of individual genes combined with low exposure rates, this analysis of two large case–parent trio studies argues for considering possible G × E interaction in any comprehensive study of complex and heterogeneous disorders such as OFC.

Highlights

  • Orofacial clefts (OFCs) are the most common craniofacial malformations in humans, affecting approximately one per 1,000 live births (Mai et al, 2014)

  • Meta-Analysis of G and G × E Interaction Effects in the 2 df Test. It has been suggested the 2 df joint test for gene (G) and G × E interaction could provide more power to detect genes influencing risk to complex and heterogeneous diseases when there is any possibility of G × E interaction (Kraft et al, 2007)

  • There are some differences among these results from metaanalysis across the three exposures considered, and their differences must arise from the estimated G × E interaction parameter

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Orofacial clefts (OFCs) are the most common craniofacial malformations in humans, affecting approximately one per 1,000 live births (Mai et al, 2014). Among all infants born with an OFC, 70% of CL/P cases and 50% of CP cases occur as isolated, non-syndromic malformations (Shi et al, 2008). Substantial variation in birth prevalence rates of nonsyndromic CL/P has been reported across populations: Asian populations have higher birth prevalence rates compared to those of European descent (Dixon et al, 2011) and African populations have the lowest birth prevalence rates (Mossey et al, 2009). Compared to CL/P, non-syndromic CP shows less variability in birth prevalence rates across populations (Genisca et al, 2009; Beaty et al, 2011). Due to the high overall birth prevalence rate and the large financial, medical, and emotional burden of treatment required by children with an OFC, understanding the etiology of OFCs is an important public health goal

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call