Negative autoregulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 expression characterizing cranial development in cases of Apert (P253R mutation) and Pfeiffer (C278F mutation) syndromes and suggesting a basis for differences in their cranial phenotypes.

Abstract

Heterogeneous mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene (FGFR2) cause a range of craniosynostosis syndromes. The specificity of the Apert syndrome-affected cranial phenotype reflects its narrow mutational range: 98% of cases of Apert syndrome result from an Ser252Trp or Pro253Arg mutation in the immunoglobulin-like (Ig)IIIa extracellular subdomain of FGFR2. In contrast, a broad range of mutations throughout the extracellular domain of FGFR2 causes the overlapping cranial phenotypes of Pfeiffer and Crouzon syndromes and related craniofacial dysostoses. In this paper the expression of FGFR1, the IgIIIa/c and IgIIIa/b isoforms of FGFR2, and FGFR3 is investigated in Apert syndrome (P253R mutation)- and Pfeiffer syndrome (C278F mutation)-affected fetal cranial tissue and is contrasted with healthy human control tissues. Both FGFR1 and FGFR3 are normally expressed in the differentiated osteoblasts of the periosteum and osteoid, in domains overlapped by that of FGFR2, which widely include preosseous cranial mesenchyme. Expression of FGFR2, however, is restricted to domains of advanced osseous differentiation in both Apert syndrome- and Pfeiffer syndrome-affected cranial skeletogenesis in the presence of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)2, but not in the presence of FGF4 or FGF7. Whereas expression of the FGFR2-IgIIIa/b (KGFR) isoform is restricted in normal human cranial osteogenesis, there is preliminary evidence that KGFR is ectopically expressed in Pfeiffer syndrome-affected cranial osteogenesis. Contraction of the FGFR2-IgIIIa/c (BEK) expression domain in cases of Apert syndrome- and Pfeiffer syndrome-affected fetal cranial ossification suggests that the mutant activation of this receptor, by ligand-dependent or ligand-independent means, results in negative autoregulation. This phenomenon, resulting from different mechanisms in the two syndromes, offers a model by which to explain differences in their cranial phenotypes.