Damaging Mutations in AFDN Contribute to Risk of Nonsyndromic Cleft Lip With or Without Cleft Palate.

Novel or rare damaging mutations have been implicated in the developmental pathogenesis of nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL ± P). Thus, we investigated the human genome for high-impact mutations that could explain the risk of nsCL ± P in our cohorts.We conducted next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of 130 nsCL ± P case-parent African trios to identify pathogenic variants that contribute to the risk of clefting. We replicated this analysis using whole-exome sequence data from a Brazilian nsCL ± P cohort. Computational analyses were then used to predict the mechanism by which these variants could result in increased risks for nsCL ± P.We discovered damaging mutations within the AFDN gene, a cell adhesion molecule (CAMs) that was previously shown to contribute to cleft palate in mice. These mutations include p.Met1164Ile, p.Thr453Asn, p.Pro1638Ala, p.Arg669Gln, p.Ala1717Val, and p.Arg1596His. We also discovered a novel splicing p.Leu1588Leu mutation in this protein. Computational analysis suggests that these amino acid changes affect the interactions with other cleft-associated genes including nectins (PVRL1, PVRL2, PVRL3, and PVRL4) CDH1, CTNNA1, and CTNND1.This is the first report on the contribution of AFDN to the risk for nsCL ± P in humans. AFDN encodes AFADIN, an important CAM that forms calcium-independent complexes with nectins 1 and 4 (encoded by the genes PVRL1 and PVRL4). This discovery shows the power of NGS analysis of multiethnic cleft samples in combination with a computational approach in the understanding of the pathogenesis of nsCL ± P.

Investigating the relationship between cancer and orofacial clefts using GWAS significant loci for cancers: A case-control and case-triad study.

Background: Several population-based case-control studies have reported concurrent presentation of cancer and congenital malformations. Many associations have been made between oral clefting and cancers, though some of these results are conflicting. Some studies have reported an increased risk of cancer among 1st-degree relatives of cleft cases and vice versa, and also an excess risk of cancers of the breast, lung, and brain among those with oral clefts. This study aimed to determine if the genetic polymorphisms found in some cancers are also associated with orofacial cleft in an African cohort. Methods: The study was a case-control and case-triad study in which cases were 400 individuals clinically diagnosed with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), while controls were 450 individuals without CL/P. Samples were obtained from three African countries while DNA extraction, PCR, and genotyping were carried out at the University of Iowa, US. Eleven SNPs in genes coding for SWI/SNF subunits and 13 GWAS significant SNPs for cancers associated with orofacial cleft were selected. Case-control analysis, transmission disequilibrium test (TDT), and DFAM to combine the parent-offspring trio data and unrelated case/control data in a single analysis were carried out using PLINK. Results: For the case-control analyses that included all the clefts and for the CLP subtype, none of the SNPs were statistically significant. Statistically increased risk for the following SNPs rs34775372 (p = 0.02; OR = 1.54, CI:1.07-2.22), rs55658222 (p = 0.009; OR = 2.64, CI:1.28-5.45) and rs72728755 (p = 0.02; OR=2.27, CI:1.17-4.45) was observed with the CL only sub-group. None of these were significant after Bonferoni correction. In the TDT analyses, a significantly reduced risk with rs10941679 (p = 0.003; OR = 0.43, CI:0.24-0.75) was observed and this was significant after Bonferroni correction. The rs10941679 was also significant (p = 0.003) in the DFAM analyses as well even after Bonferroni correction. Conclusion: The results from this study represent an important starting point for understanding the concurrent presentation of some cancers in orofacial clefts, and cancer risks in cleft patients. The associations observed warrant further investigation in a larger cohort and will set the stage for a more mechanistic approach toward understanding the risk for cancers in families with clefts.

Comparing the Treatment Outcomes of Absorbable Sutures, Nonabsorbable Sutures, and Tissue Adhesives in Cleft Lip Repair: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the literature and synthesize the available reports for the best possible option between absorbable, nonabsorbable, and tissue adhesives in cleft lip skin closure. DESIGN: We conducted systematic searches for randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and OpenGrey databases. Identified studies were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. All statistical analyses were done with Revman, version 5.4. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention considered in this systematic review were techniques of cleft lip repair using resorbable sutures, nonabsorbable sutures, medical adhesives, or any combination of these. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes assessed in the trials had to include any combination of the following: wound healing cosmesis and wound healing complications. While secondary outcomes considered were quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Only 6 studies met all inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative analysis. A more favorable wound healing cosmesis was seen when nonabsorbable suture was used in cleft lip repair compared to absorbable sutures and tissue adhesives (CI, 0.65-4.35). This advantage was overshadowed by the significantly higher prevalence of postoperative complications when nonabsorbable sutures are used. CONCLUSION: Although the results point to more favorable cosmesis with nonabsorbable sutures and an overall more favorable outcome with either absorbable sutures or tissue adhesives, the 6 selected studies were assessed at an unclear risk of bias; therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution and regarded as low-certainty evidence.

Genome-Wide Scan for Parent-of-Origin Effects in a sub-Saharan African Cohort With Nonsyndromic Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate (CL/P).

OBJECTIVE: Nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or cleft palate (NSCL/P) have multifactorial etiology where genetic factors, gene-environment interactions, stochastic factors, gene-gene interactions, and parent-of-origin effects (POEs) play cardinal roles. POEs arise when the parental origin of alleles differentially impacts the phenotype of the offspring. The aim of this study was to identify POEs that can increase risk for NSCL/P in humans using a genome-wide dataset. METHODS: The samples (174 case-parent trios from Ghana, Ethiopia, and Nigeria) included in this study were from the African only genome wide association studies (GWAS) that was published in 2019. Genotyping of individual DNA using over 2 million multiethnic and African ancestry-specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms from the Illumina Multi-Ethnic Genotyping Array v2 15070954 A2 (genome build GRCh37/hg19) was done at the Center for Inherited Diseases Research. After quality control checks, PLINK was employed to carry out POE analysis employing the pooled subphenotypes of NSCL/P. RESULTS: We observed possible hints of POEs at a cluster of genes at a 1 mega base pair window at the major histocompatibility complex class 1 locus on chromosome 6, as well as at other loci encompassing candidate genes such as ASB18, ANKEF1, AGAP1, GABRD, HHAT, CCT7, DNMT3A, EPHA7, FOXO3, lncRNAs, microRNA, antisense RNAs, ZNRD1, ZFAT, and ZBTB16. CONCLUSION: Findings from our study suggest that some loci may increase the risk for NSCL/P through POEs. Additional studies are required to confirm these suggestive loci in NSCL/P etiology.

Psychological Distress Before and After Surgical Resection of Benign Orofacial Tumors: A Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the presence and level of psychological distress in patients before and after resection of benign orofacial tumors and identified the variables associated with this psychological distress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. A questionnaire that included these 2 scales was administered to the patients before surgery and at 1, 2, and 6 weeks after surgery. The scores at the various intervals were statistically compared, and the relationships between the variables (eg, age, gender, education, marital status, occupation, lesion size) and psychological distress were also tested. RESULTS: Of the 31 patients, 29% had abnormal levels of anxiety before surgery, and 12.9% reported abnormal depression levels before surgery. The proportion of patients with abnormal anxiety levels increased from 29% before surgery to 38.7, 38.7, and 35.5% at 1, 2, and 6 weeks after surgery, respectively. The proportion of patients with abnormal depression levels at all intervals after surgery remained the same as that before surgery (12.9%). All the patients had normal self-esteem levels both before and after surgery. Using a paired t test, the mean anxiety scores at all intervals after surgery were significantly greater than the mean anxiety score before surgery. Analyses of the relationships between the independent variables and psychological distress (anxiety and depression) found the level of education to be significantly associated with anxiety before and after surgery. In contrast, the lesion size was significantly associated with depression both before and after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that abnormal anxiety and depression will be present in some patients with benign orofacial tumors both before and after surgery. The patients' education level and lesion size were strongly associated with the level of psychological distress present in patients with benign orofacial tumors.

Experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists.

OBJECTIVE: To report the experience of wrong-site tooth extraction among Nigerian dentists. STUDY DESIGN: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among a cross-section of Nigerian dentists. Information requested included personal experience on wrong-site tooth/teeth extraction and its after-effect, possible reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction and documentation of the event in patients' case. Respondents were also asked if they were aware of any colleagues who had previously experienced wrong-site tooth extraction and possible legal implication of the event, and if they aware of the universal protocol for preventing wrong site, wrong procedure, and wrong person surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-two (13%) of the respondents reported having extracted a wrong tooth. The event occurred within 5 years after graduation in most cases. Most respondents (53.6%) informed the patient immediately after the event. Only 68% of the respondents documented the event in patient's case record. Most common reasons for wrong-site tooth extraction were heavy workload, presence of multiple condemned teeth and miscommunication between dentists. Fifty-five percent of respondents were aware of a colleague who had extracted a wrong tooth. The most probable legal implication of wrong-site tooth extraction according to the respondents was litigation by the patient. Only 25% of dentists were aware of a universal protocol for preventing wrong-site surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Wrong tooth/teeth extraction is not an uncommon event in the studied environment. The need to be familiar with universal protocol on wrong-site surgery and its legal implications are highlighted.