↓ Skip to main content

A Genome-Wide Search for Gene-Environment Effects in Isolated Cleft Lip with or without Cleft Palate Triads Points to an Interaction between Maternal Periconceptional Vitamin Use and Variants in ESRRG

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Genome-Wide Search for Gene-Environment Effects in Isolated Cleft Lip with or without Cleft Palate Triads Points to an Interaction between Maternal Periconceptional Vitamin Use and Variants in ESRRG
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Øystein A. Haaland, Rolv T. Lie, Julia Romanowska, Miriam Gjerdevik, Håkon K. Gjessing, Astanand Jugessur

Abstract

Background: It is widely accepted that cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) results from the complex interplay between multiple genetic and environmental factors. However, a robust investigation of these gene-environment (GxE) interactions at a genome-wide level is still lacking for isolated CL/P. Materials and Methods: We used our R-package Haplin to perform a genome-wide search for GxE effects in isolated CL/P. From a previously published GWAS, genotypes and information on maternal periconceptional cigarette smoking, alcohol intake, and vitamin use were available on 1908 isolated CL/P triads of predominantly European or Asian ancestry. A GxE effect is present if the relative risk estimates for gene-effects in the offspring are different across exposure strata. We tested this using the relative risk ratio (RRR). Besides analyzing all ethnicities combined ("pooled analysis"), separate analyses were conducted on Europeans and Asians to investigate ethnicity-specific effects. To control for multiple testing, q-values were calculated from the p-values. Results: We identified significant GxVitamin interactions with three SNPs in "Estrogen-related receptor gamma" (ESRRG) in the pooled analysis. The RRRs (95% confidence intervals) were 0.56 (0.45-0.69) with rs1339221 (q = 0.011), 0.57 (0.46-0.70) with rs11117745 (q = 0.011), and 0.62 (0.50-0.76) with rs2099557 (q = 0.037). The associations were stronger when these SNPs were analyzed as haplotypes composed of two-SNP and three-SNP combinations. The strongest effect was with the "t-t-t" haplotype of the rs1339221-rs11117745-rs2099557 combination [RRR = 0.50 (0.40-0.64)], suggesting that the effects observed with the other SNP combinations, including those in the single-SNP analyses, were mainly driven by this haplotype. Although there were potential GxVitamin effects with rs17734557 and rs1316471 and GxAlcohol effects with rs9653456 and rs921876 in the European sample, respectively, none of the SNPs was located in or near genes with strong links to orofacial clefts. GxAlcohol and GxSmoke effects were not assessed in the Asian sample because of a lack of observations for these exposures. Discussion/Conclusion: We identified significant interactions between vitamin use and variants in ESRRG in the pooled analysis. These GxE effects are novel and warrant further investigations to elucidate their roles in orofacial clefting. If validated, they could provide prospects for exploring the impact of estrogens and vitamins on clefting, with potential translational applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#3,996
of 12,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,740
of 330,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#69
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.