Abstract

Premature fusion of the cranial sutures (craniosynostosis), affecting 1 in 2,000 newborns, is treated surgically in infancy to prevent adverse neurologic outcomes. To identify mutations contributing to common non-syndromic midline (sagittal and metopic) craniosynostosis, we performed exome sequencing of 132 parent-offspring trios and 59 additional probands. Thirteen probands (7%) had damaging de novo or rare transmitted mutations in SMAD6, an inhibitor of BMP - induced osteoblast differentiation (P < 10-20). SMAD6 mutations nonetheless showed striking incomplete penetrance (<60%). Genotypes of a common variant near BMP2 that is strongly associated with midline craniosynostosis explained nearly all the phenotypic variation in these kindreds, with highly significant evidence of genetic interaction between these loci via both association and analysis of linkage. This epistatic interaction of rare and common variants defines the most frequent cause of midline craniosynostosis and has implications for the genetic basis of other diseases.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andrew T Timberlake

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8926-9692
  2. Jungmin Choi

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Samir Zaidi

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Qiongshi Lu

    Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Carol Nelson-Williams

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Eric D Brooks

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kaya Bilguvar

    Department of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Irina Tikhonova

    Yale Center for Genome Analysis, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Shrikant Mane

    Department of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jenny F Yang

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Rajendra Sawh-Martinez

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Sarah Persing

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Elizabeth G Zellner

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Erin Loring

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Carolyn Chuang

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Amy Galm

    Craniosynostosis and Positional Plagiocephaly Support, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Peter W Hashim

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Derek M Steinbacher

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Michael L DiLuna

    Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Charles C Duncan

    Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Kevin A Pelphrey

    Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Hongyu Zhao

    Department of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. John A Persing

    Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Richard P Lifton

    Department of Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    richard.lifton@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Yale Center for Mendelian Genomics (NIH M#UM1HG006504-05)

  • Kaya Bilguvar
  • Irina Tikhonova
  • Shrikant Mane

Maxillofacial Surgeons Foundation/ASMS (M#M156301)

  • Eric D Brooks
  • John A Persing

NIH Medical Scientist Training Program (NIH/NIGMS T32GM007205)

  • Andrew T Timberlake
  • Samir Zaidi

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Andrew T Timberlake
  • Jungmin Choi
  • Samir Zaidi
  • Carol Nelson-Williams
  • Erin Loring
  • Richard P Lifton

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. David Ginsburg, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Michigan, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants or their parents provided written informed consent to participate in a study of genetic causes of craniosynostosis in their family. Written consent was obtained for publication of patient photographs. The study protocol was approved by the Yale Human Investigation Committee Institutional Review Board.

Version history

  1. Received: July 28, 2016
  2. Accepted: August 30, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 8, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: September 9, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: September 30, 2016 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: October 26, 2016 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2016, Timberlake et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 9,544
    views
  • 1,409
    downloads
  • 155
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Andrew T Timberlake
  2. Jungmin Choi
  3. Samir Zaidi
  4. Qiongshi Lu
  5. Carol Nelson-Williams
  6. Eric D Brooks
  7. Kaya Bilguvar
  8. Irina Tikhonova
  9. Shrikant Mane
  10. Jenny F Yang
  11. Rajendra Sawh-Martinez
  12. Sarah Persing
  13. Elizabeth G Zellner
  14. Erin Loring
  15. Carolyn Chuang
  16. Amy Galm
  17. Peter W Hashim
  18. Derek M Steinbacher
  19. Michael L DiLuna
  20. Charles C Duncan
  21. Kevin A Pelphrey
  22. Hongyu Zhao
  23. John A Persing
  24. Richard P Lifton
(2016)
Two locus inheritance of non-syndromic midline craniosynostosis via rare SMAD6 and common BMP2 alleles
eLife 5:e20125.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20125

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20125

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Lucie Crhak Khaitova, Pavlina Mikulkova ... Karel Riha
    Research Article

    Heat stress is a major threat to global crop production, and understanding its impact on plant fertility is crucial for developing climate-resilient crops. Despite the known negative effects of heat stress on plant reproduction, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. Here, we investigated the impact of elevated temperature on centromere structure and chromosome segregation during meiosis in Arabidopsis thaliana. Consistent with previous studies, heat stress leads to a decline in fertility and micronuclei formation in pollen mother cells. Our results reveal that elevated temperature causes a decrease in the amount of centromeric histone and the kinetochore protein BMF1 at meiotic centromeres with increasing temperature. Furthermore, we show that heat stress increases the duration of meiotic divisions and prolongs the activity of the spindle assembly checkpoint during meiosis I, indicating an impaired efficiency of the kinetochore attachments to spindle microtubules. Our analysis of mutants with reduced levels of centromeric histone suggests that weakened centromeres sensitize plants to elevated temperature, resulting in meiotic defects and reduced fertility even at moderate temperatures. These results indicate that the structure and functionality of meiotic centromeres in Arabidopsis are highly sensitive to heat stress, and suggest that centromeres and kinetochores may represent a critical bottleneck in plant adaptation to increasing temperatures.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Allison Coté, Aoife O'Farrell ... Arjun Raj
    Research Article

    Splicing is the stepwise molecular process by which introns are removed from pre-mRNA and exons are joined together to form mature mRNA sequences. The ordering and spatial distribution of these steps remain controversial, with opposing models suggesting splicing occurs either during or after transcription. We used single-molecule RNA FISH, expansion microscopy, and live-cell imaging to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution of nascent transcripts in mammalian cells. At super-resolution levels, we found that pre-mRNA formed clouds around the transcription site. These clouds indicate the existence of a transcription-site-proximal zone through which RNA move more slowly than in the nucleoplasm. Full-length pre-mRNA undergo continuous splicing as they move through this zone following transcription, suggesting a model in which splicing can occur post-transcriptionally but still within the proximity of the transcription site, thus seeming co-transcriptional by most assays. These results may unify conflicting reports of co-transcriptional versus post-transcriptional splicing.