Back

A study of sex-specific genetic effects underlying risk of orofacial clefts also highlights the potential impact of sequencing errors due to short read mis-mapping

Kanchan, K.; ERDOGAN-YILDIRIM, Z.; Berke, S. R.; Mukhopadhyay, N.; Ray, D.; Simpson, C. L.; Bidinger, J. A.; Curtis, S. W.; Butali, A.; Schwender, H.; Scott, A. F.; Bailey Wilson, J.; Beaty, T. H.; Leslie, E.; Marazita, M. L.; Ruczinski, I.

2026-07-09 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.07.07.26357463 medRxiv
Show abstract

Orofacial clefts (OFCs), including cleft lip (CL), cleft palate (CP), and cleft lip with cleft palate (CLP), are among the most common craniofacial malformations in humans, with a birth prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000 live births globally. Non-syndromic forms of OFC are predominantly genetic, with significant variability in prevalence across populations. Understanding the genetic underpinnings of OFCs remains a key public health priority, given the substantial medical and societal burden of these conditions. Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have implicated numerous genetic loci, but challenges remain due to genetic heterogeneity and complex gene-environment interactions. This study aimed to identify sex-specific genetic risk factors for cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) through a meta-analysis of whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from 1,922 case-parent trios across eight diverse cohorts. Our approach revealed four SNPs in three distinct regions that showed genome-wide significant sex-specific effects. However, despite each of these SNPs passing standard quality control filters, follow-up analyses showed that these signals most likely were technical artifacts caused by sequencing errors, in particular mis-mapped reads due to sequence similarities with the sex chromosomes. These findings highlight the necessity for careful scrutiny when studying differences between the sexes in genetic association studies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.