Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 39606391

Genetic and Epigenetic Contributors to Cleft Laterality: Evidence from Monozygotic Mirror Twins and Replication Cohorts.

Abstract

Nonsyndromic cleft lip (nsCL) exhibits a non-random laterality pattern, with left-sided clefts occurring approximately twice as frequently as right-sided clefts. The molecular mechanisms underlying this laterality bias remain poorly understood. We performed whole-genome sequencing and methylation profiling on a family comprising monozygotic twins with mirror-image nsCL, their affected mother, and unaffected father and brother. We conducted three independent replications via (1) publicly available whole genome data; (2) genome-wide methylation analysis in 38 individuals with unilateral cleft; and (3) validation of methylation results in the top 3 candidate genes in 385 unrelated individuals with unilateral clefts (DNA from blood or saliva). We identified a variant in FGF20 (p.Ile79Val) shared by the twins and their mother. We observed laterality and severity-associated methylation differences in three main genes. ARID5B showed higher methylation in left clefts (saliva, p=0.001; blood, p=0.032). ZFP57 demonstrated a strong cleft-extent effect, with cleft lip and palate (CLP) showing markedly higher methylation than cleft lip only (CL) (LCLP vs. RCL padj=0.0004; LCLP vs. LCL padj = 0.019). HOOK2 displayed a cross-tissue cleft-extent effect in the opposite direction - CLP subtypes were hypomethylated relative to CL-only subtypes in blood (p<0.0001) and saliva p=0.0008). This study provides evidence that DNA methylation patterns plays a role in both the laterality and severity of cleft lip. ARID5B provides a consistent laterality signal across tissues, while ZFP57 and HOOK2 track palatal involvement independently of side. Together, these findings suggest that epigenetic variation acts downstream of genetic predisposition to shape cleft phenotypes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aline L Petrin, Waheed Awotoye, Christina E Spencer, Ligiane A Machado-Paula, Luke Hovey, Henry Keen, Michael Chimenti, Patrick Breheny, Fang Qian, Shareef Dabdoub, James C Thomas, Azeez Butali, Jeffrey C Murray, Shankar Rengasamy Venugopalan, Lina M Moreno-Uribe. 2026-04-21. Genetic and Epigenetic Contributors to Cleft Laterality: Evidence from Monozygotic Mirror Twins and Replication Cohorts.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.16.24317351

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article