Back

Leveraging the genetics of human face shape boosts the discovery of orofacial cleft risk loci

Herrick, N.; Goovaerts, S.; Manchel, A.; Lee, M. K.; Zhang, X.; Davies, A.; Carlson, J. C.; Leslie-Clarkson, E. J.; Lewis, S. J.; Marazita, M. L.; Cotney, J.; Claes, P.; Shaffer, J. R.; Weinberg, S. M.

2026-02-03 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.01.30.26345139 medRxiv
Show abstract

Several lines of evidence suggest that normal-range facial features and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts (OFCs) exhibit a shared genetic basis. Approaches designed to leverage this relationship hold the possibility of revealing new OFC risk loci by boosting discovery power. To test this idea, we applied a pleiotropy-informed GWAS method (cFDR-GWAS) with summary statistics from large, independent European GWASs of normal facial shape (n=4,680; n=3,566) and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL/P, n=3,969). The cFDR approach identified 21 independent genomic loci significantly associated with nsCL/P, providing further evidence of the interconnected genetic architecture between these traits. The five original nsCL/P GWAS signals were detected and joined by nine additional loci previously implicated in other OFC association studies. The remaining seven loci represent new nsCL/P genomic regions, and three of these replicated (P < 0.05) in an independent nsCL/P cohort: ASPSCR1, MSX2, and RALYL. A relaxed 10% cFDR-GWAS threshold identified 15 more independent loci with comparable effect sizes to those detected at the strict 5% threshold, two of which replicated: FHOD3 and SMARCA2. Gene expression patterns in major cell types and spatial transcriptomics data highlighted our gene candidates roles in craniofacial development. In conclusion, the application of an empirical Bayesian strategy to draw on association signals from genetically related traits can boost the power to identify and prioritize OFC risk loci missed by agnostic gene mapping approaches. These results hold promise that the cFDR-GWAS approach may be able to enhance our understanding of the genetic architecture of other structural birth defects.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
14.1%
2
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.2%
3
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.0%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 25%
7.0%
5
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.7%
6
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 14%
6.2%
7
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 19%
3.8%
9
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
11
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
12
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
13
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.7%
14
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.5%
15
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.8%
17
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
18
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
19
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
21
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
23
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
25
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
26
Development
440 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%