4.8 Article

Molecular pathogenesis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia revealed by exome sequencing, developmental data, and bioinformatics

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1412509111

关键词

network analysis; diaphragm development; CDH genetics

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [P01 HD068250-03]
  2. National Research Service Award [2T32GM007748-35]
  3. Northwest Genomics Center at the University of Washington, Department of Genome Sciences, under US Federal Government from the NHLBI [HHSN268201100037C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a common and severe birth defect. Despite its clinical significance, the genetic and developmental pathways underlying this disorder are incompletely understood. In this study, we report a catalog of variants detected by a whole exome sequencing study on 275 individuals with CDH. Predicted pathogenic variants in genes previously identified in either humans or mice with diaphragm defects are enriched in our CDH cohort compared with 120 size-matched random gene sets. This enrichment was absent in control populations. Variants in these critical genes can be found in up to 30.9% of individuals with CDH. In addition, we filtered variants by using genes derived from regions of recurrent copy number variations in CDH, expression profiles of the developing diaphragm, protein interaction networks expanded from the known CDH-causing genes, and prioritized genes with ultrarare and highly disruptive variants, in 11.3% of CDH patients. These strategies have identified several high priority genes and developmental pathways that likely contribute to the CDH phenotype. These data are valuable for comparison of candidate genes generated from whole exome sequencing of other CDH cohorts or multiplex kindreds and provide ideal candidates for further functional studies. Furthermore, we propose that these genes and pathways will enhance our understanding of the heterogeneous molecular etiology of CDH.

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

4.8
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