Cleft Palate in Pfeiffer Syndrome

The Evaluation of FGFR1, FGFR2 and FOXO1 in Orofacial Cleft Tissue

Although cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL/P) is one of the most common congenital anomalies worldwide, the morphopathogenesis of non-syndromic orofacial clefts is still unclear. Many candidate genes have been proposed to play a causal role; however, only a few have been confirmed, leaving many still to be assessed. Taking into account the significance of FGFR1, FGFR2 and FOXO1 in embryogenesis, the aim of this work was to detect and compare the three candidate genes in cleft-affected lip and palatine tissue. Ten soft tissue samples were taken during cheiloplasty and veloplasty. The signals of the candidate genes were visualized using chromogenic in situ hybridization and analyzed using a semi-quantitative method. No statistically important difference in the distribution of FGFR1, FGFR2 and FOXO1 between neither the patients’ lip and vomer mucosa nor the control group was observed. Statistically significant very strong and strong correlations were found between genes in the lip and palatine tissue. The expression of FGFR1, FGFR2 and FOXO1 in cleft-affected lip and palatine tissue seems to be highly individual. Numerous intercorrelations between the genes do not exclude their role in the possible complex morphopathogenesis of orofacial clefts.

Tissue-specific analysis of Fgf18 gene function in palate development

BACKGROUND

Previous studies showed that mice lacking Fgf18 function had cleft palate defects and that the FGF18 locus was associated with cleft lip and palate in humans, but what specific roles Fgf18 plays during palatogenesis are unclear.

RESULTS

We show that Fgf18 exhibits regionally restricted expression in developing palatal shelves, mandible, and tongue, during palatal outgrowth and fusion in mouse embryos. Tissue-specific inactivation of Fgf18 throughout neural crest-derived craniofacial mesenchyme caused shortened mandible and reduction in ossification of the frontal, nasal, and anterior cranial base skeletal elements in Fgf18c/c ;Wnt1-Cre mutant mice. About 64% of Fgf18c/c ;Wnt1-Cre mice exhibited cleft palate. Whereas palatal shelf elevation was impaired in many Fgf18c/c ;Wnt1-Cre embryos, no significant difference in palatal cell proliferation was detected between Fgf18c/c ;Wnt1-Cre embryos and their control littermates. Embryonic maxillary explants from Fgf18c/c ;Wnt1-Cre embryos showed successful palatal shelf elevation and fusion in organ culture similar to the maxillary explants from control embryos. Furthermore, tissue-specific inactivation of Fgf18 in the early palatal mesenchyme did not cause cleft palate.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate a critical role for Fgf18 expression in the neural crest-derived mesenchyme for the development of the mandible and multiple craniofacial bones but Fgf18 expression in the palatal mesenchyme is dispensable for palatogenesis.

Genetics and signaling mechanisms of orofacial clefts

Craniofacial development involves several complex tissue movements including several fusion processes to form the frontonasal and maxillary structures, including the upper lip and palate. Each of these movements are controlled by many different factors that are tightly regulated by several integral morphogenetic signaling pathways. Subject to both genetic and environmental influences, interruption at nearly any stage can disrupt lip, nasal, or palate fusion and result in a cleft. Here, we discuss many of the genetic risk factors that may contribute to the presentation of orofacial clefts in patients, and several of the key signaling pathways and underlying cellular mechanisms that control lip and palate formation, as identified primarily through investigating equivalent processes in animal models, are examined.

Choanal Atresia and Craniosynostosis: Development and Disease

A number of textbooks, review articles, and case reports highlight the potential comorbidity of choanal atresia in craniosynostosis patients. However, the lack of a precise definition of choanal atresia within the current craniosynostosis literature and widely varying methods of detection and diagnosis have produced uncertainty regarding the true coincidence of these conditions. The authors review the anatomy and embryologic basis of the human choanae, provide an overview of choanal atresia, and analyze the available literature that links choanal atresia and craniosynostosis. Review of over 50 case reports that describe patients diagnosed with both conditions reveals inconsistent descriptions of choanal atresia and limited use of definitive diagnostic methodologies. The authors further present preliminary analysis of three-dimensional medical head computed tomographic scans of children diagnosed with craniosynostosis syndromes (e.g., Apert, Pfeiffer, Muenke, and Crouzon) and typically developing children and, although finding no evidence of choanal atresia, report the potentially reduced nasal airway volumes in children diagnosed with Apert and Pfeiffer syndromes. A recent study of the Fgfr2c Crouzon/Pfeiffer syndrome mouse model similarly found a significant reduction in nasal airway volumes in littermates carrying this FGFR2 mutation relative to unaffected littermates, without detection of choanal atresia. The significant correlation between specific craniosynostosis syndromes and reduced nasal airway volume in mouse models for craniosynostosis and human pediatric patients indicates comorbidity of choanal and nasopharyngeal dysmorphologies and craniosynostosis conditions. Genetic, developmental, and epidemiologic sources of these interactions are areas particularly worthy of further research.

Tooth agenesis and orofacial clefting: genetic brothers in arms?

Tooth agenesis and orofacial clefts represent the most common developmental anomalies and their co-occurrence is often reported in patients as well in animal models. The aim of the present systematic review is to thoroughly investigate the current literature (PubMed, EMBASE) to identify the genes and genomic loci contributing to syndromic or non-syndromic co-occurrence of tooth agenesis and orofacial clefts, to gain insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying their dual involvement in the development of teeth and facial primordia. Altogether, 84 articles including phenotype and genotype description provided 9 genomic loci and 26 gene candidates underlying the co-occurrence of the two congenital defects: MSX1, PAX9, IRF6, TP63, KMT2D, KDM6A, SATB2, TBX22, TGFα, TGFβ3, TGFβR1, TGFβR2, FGF8, FGFR1, KISS1R, WNT3, WNT5A, CDH1, CHD7, AXIN2, TWIST1, BCOR, OFD1, PTCH1, PITX2, and PVRL1. The molecular pathways, cellular functions, tissue-specific expression and disease association were investigated using publicly accessible databases (EntrezGene, UniProt, OMIM). The Gene Ontology terms of the biological processes mediated by the candidate genes were used to cluster them using the GOTermMapper (Lewis-Sigler Institute, Princeton University), speculating on six super-clusters: (a) anatomical development, (b) cell division, growth and motility, (c) cell metabolism and catabolism, (d) cell transport, (e) cell structure organization and (f) organ/system-specific processes. This review aims to increase the knowledge on the mechanisms underlying the co-occurrence of tooth agenesis and orofacial clefts, to pave the way for improving targeted (prenatal) molecular diagnosis and finally to reflect on therapeutic or ultimately preventive strategies for these disabling conditions in the future.

Homeobox family Hoxc localization during murine palate formation

Homeobox genes play important roles in craniofacial morphogenesis. However, the characteristics of the transcription factor Hoxc during palate formation remain unclear. We examined the immunolocalization patterns of Hoxc5, Hoxc4, and Hoxc6 in palatogenesis of cleft palate (Eh/Eh) mice. On the other hand, mutations in the FGF/FGFR pathway are exclusively associated with syndromic forms of cleft palate. We also examined the immunolocalization of Fgfr1 and Erk1/2 to clarify their relationships with Hoxc in palatogenesis. Some palatal epithelial cells showed Hoxc5 labeling, while almost no labeling of mesenchymal cells was observed in +/+ mice. As palate formation progressed in +/+ mice, Hoxc5, Hoxc4, and Hoxc6 were observed in medial epithelial seam cells. Hoxc5 and Hoxc6 were detected in the oral epithelium. The palatal mesenchyme also showed intense staining for Fgfr1 and Erk1/2 with progression of palate formation. In contrast, the palatal shelves of Eh/Eh mice exhibited impaired horizontal growth and failed to fuse, resulting in a cleft. Hoxc5 was observed in a few epithelial cells and diffusely in the mesenchyme of Eh/Eh palatal shelves. No or little labeling of Fgfr1 and Erk1/2 was detected in the cleft palate of Eh/Eh mice. These findings suggest that Hoxc genes are involved in palatogenesis. Furthermore, there may be the differences in the localization pattern between Hoxc5, Hoxc4, and Hoxc6. Additionally, Hoxc distribution in palatal cells during palate development may be correlated with FGF signaling. (228/250 words) © 2016 Japanese Teratology Society.

Craniosynostosis and Resynostosis: Models, Imaging, and Dental Implications

Craniosynostosis occurs in approximately 1 in 2,000 children and results from the premature fusion of ≥1 cranial sutures. If left untreated, craniosynostosis can cause numerous complications as related to an increase in intracranial pressure or as a direct result from cranial deformities, or both. More than 100 known mutations may cause syndromic craniosynostosis, but the majority of cases are nonsyndromic, occurring as isolated defects. Most cases of craniosynostosis require complex cranial vault reconstruction that is associated with a high risk of morbidity. While the first operation typically has few complications, bone rapidly regrows in up to 40% of children who undergo it. This resynostosis typically requires additional surgical intervention, which can be associated with a high incidence of life-threatening complications. This article reviews work related to the dental and maxillofacial implications of craniosynostosis and discusses clinically relevant animal models related to craniosynostosis and resynostosis. In addition, information is provided on the imaging modalities used to study cranial defects in animals and humans.

Upper extremity anomalies in Pfeiffer syndrome and mutational correlations

BACKGROUND

Pfeiffer syndrome is characterized by craniosynostosis and a variety of associated upper and lower extremity anomalies. The authors reviewed presentation and treatment of upper extremity anomalies in a series of genotyped patients with Pfeiffer syndrome.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with Pfeiffer syndrome seen at the authors' institution over a 16-year period were reviewed. Data on clinical presentation, genetic testing, and treatment were collected. The upper extremity anomalies were documented using plain radiographs and physical examinations by a multidisciplinary craniofacial team.

RESULTS

Of 15 patients identified as having FGFR1- or FGFR2-confirmed Pfeiffer syndrome, 12 (80 percent) presented with upper extremity anomalies, most commonly broad thumbs [n = 10 (83 percent)], radial clinodactyly (thumbs) [n = 7 (58 percent)], and symphalangism [n = 7 each (58 percent)]. All patients with upper extremity anomalies had lower extremity anomalies. Six of the 12 patients (50 percent) with upper extremity findings underwent surgical correction. FGFR1 or FGFR2 genotype did not correlate with upper extremity phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Although broad thumbs are common, patients with Pfeiffer syndrome often present with other upper extremity anomalies that may not require surgical intervention. Genetic and allelic heterogeneity may explain phenotypic variability in these upper extremity anomalies. Characterization of these limb differences should be made by pediatric hand surgeons as part of a craniofacial team. Treatment decisions should be individualized and dictated by the type and severity of clinical presentation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, IV.

Impact of genetics on the diagnosis and clinical management of syndromic craniosynostoses

PURPOSE

More than 60 different mutations have been identified to be causal in syndromic forms of craniosynostosis. The majority of these mutations occur in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene (FGFR2). The clinical management of syndromic craniosynostosis varies based on the particular causal mutation. Additionally, the diagnosis of a patient with syndromic craniosynostosis is based on the clinical presentation, signs, and symptoms. The understanding of the hallmark features of particular syndromic forms of craniosynostosis leads to efficient diagnosis, management, and long-term prognosis of patients with syndromic craniosynostoses.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was done with respect to the major forms of syndromic craniosynostosis and additional less common FGFR-related forms of syndromic craniosynostosis. Additionally, information and data gathered from studies performed in our own investigative lab (lab of Dr. Muenke) were further analyzed and reviewed. A literature review was also performed with regard to the genetic workup and diagnosis of patients with craniosynostosis.

RESULTS

Patients with Apert syndrome (craniosynostosis syndrome due to mutations in FGFR2) are most severely affected in terms of intellectual disability, developmental delay, central nervous system anomalies, and limb anomalies. All patients with FGFR-related syndromic craniosynostosis have some degree of hearing loss that requires thorough initial evaluations and subsequent follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with syndromic craniosynostosis require management and treatment of issues involving multiple organ systems which span beyond craniosynostosis. Thus, effective care of these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Palatal and oral manifestations of Muenke syndrome (FGFR3-related craniosynostosis)

Although Muenke syndrome is the most common syndromic form of craniosynostosis, the frequency of oral and palatal anomalies including high-arched palate, cleft lip with or without cleft palate has not been documented in a patient series of Muenke syndrome to date. Further, to our knowledge, cleft lip and palate has not been reported yet in a patient with Muenke syndrome (a previous patient with isolated cleft palate has been reported). This study sought to evaluate the frequency of palatal anomalies in patients with Muenke syndrome through both a retrospective investigation and literature review. A total of 21 patients who met criteria for this study were included in the retrospective review. Fifteen patients (71%) had a structural anomaly of the palate. Cleft lip and palate was present in 1 patient (5%). Other palatal findings included high-arched hard palate in 14 patients (67%). Individuals with Muenke syndrome have the lowest incidence of cleft palate among the most common craniosynostosis syndromes. However, high-arched palate in Muenke syndrome is common and may warrant clinical attention, as these individuals are more susceptible to recurrent chronic otitis media with effusion, dental malocclusion, and hearing loss.