Posterior urethral valves (PUV) are the commonest cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in children, affecting 1 in 4000 male births (Brownlee et al., 2019; Thakkar et al., 2015) and result in congenital bladder outflow obstruction. It is an exclusively male disorder, with over a third of those affected developing ESRD (i.e., requirement for dialysis or kidney transplantation) before the age of 30 years (Heikkilä et al., 2011; Sanna-Cherchi et al., 2009) and often associated with renal dysplasia, vesicoureteral reflux, and bladder dysfunction which are poor prognostic factors for renal survival (Sanna-Cherchi et al., 2009). Management involves endoscopic valve ablation to relieve the obstruction, however the majority of affected children have long-term sequelae related to ongoing bladder dysfunction (DeFoor et al., 2008).

The pathogenesis of PUV is poorly understood (Krishnan et al., 2006). Although usually sporadic, familial clustering and twin studies suggest an underlying genetic component, although Mendelian inheritance is rare (Chiaramonte et al., 2016; Frese et al., 2019; Morini et al., 2002; Schreuder et al., 2008; Weber et al., 2005). Several monogenic causes of other congenital bladder outflow obstruction disorders have been described including BNC2 in urethral stenosis (Kolvenbach et al., 2019); FLNA in syndromic urethral anomalies (Wade et al., 2021); HPSE2 and LRIG2 in urofacial syndrome (Daly et al., 2010; Stuart et al., 2008); CHRM3 in prune-belly like syndrome (Weber et al., 2011); and MYOCD in megabladder (Houweling et al., 2011). However, a monogenic etiology for isolated PUV has not been identified. Case reports of chromosomal abnormalities resulting in PUV as part of a wider syndrome (Demirkan, 2021; Houcinat et al., 2011; Tong et al., 2015) and microarray-based studies linking rare copy number variants (CNVs) with PUV (Boghossian et al., 2016; Caruana et al., 2016; Faure et al., 2016; Schierbaum et al., 2021; Verbitsky et al., 2019) suggest that structural variation, and in particular duplications (Schierbaum et al., 2021; Verbitsky et al., 2019), may be important, but no recurrent CNVs have demonstrated consistent association with PUV. The observation that isolated PUV does not usually follow a classical Mendelian inheritance pattern, and that a monogenic cause has not been identified, suggests that the underlying genetic architecture of this rare disorder is likely to be complex.

Here, we used whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from a diverse ancestry cohort to perform a sequencing-based genome-wide association study (seqGWAS) investigating how common, low-frequency, and rare single-nucleotide and structural variation contribute to this complex disorder. The recently proposed term seqGWAS is used to distinguish this approach from the well-established genome-wide association study (GWAS) design based on sampling of common variation across the genome using high-throughput single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping with or without imputation (McMahon et al., 2021). Our seqGWAS identified significant associations with common and rare variation that implicated TBX5 (T-Box Transcription Factor 5) and PTK7 (Protein Tyrosine Kinase 7), respectively, as well as enrichment of structural variation affecting candidate cis-regulatory elements (cCREs). In addition, we demonstrate that a well-controlled diverse ancestry sequencing-based GWAS can increase power for disease locus discovery and facilitate the fine mapping of causal variants.

We analysed WGS data from 132 unrelated male probands with PUV and 23,727 non-PUV controls (unaffected relatives without known kidney disease), recruited to the UK’s 100,000 Genomes Project (100KGP) (Smedley et al., 2021; see Figure 1 for study workflow). The available dataset (version 10) combined WGS data, clinical phenotypes standardized using Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) codes, and comprehensive hospital clinical records for 89,139 individuals with cancer, rare disease, and their unaffected relatives. None of the cases included had received a definitive genetic diagnosis through the clinical arm of the 100KGP. Two individuals had a pathogenic and likely pathogenic variant affecting HNF1B and FOXC1, respectively, but these were not considered causal for PUV (see Appendix 1). Given the small number of recruited cases with this rare disorder, we chose to jointly analyse individuals from diverse ancestral backgrounds, thereby preserving sample size and boosting power. To mitigate confounding due to population structure whilst using this mixed-ancestry approach, we performed ancestry-matching of cases and controls using weighted principal components (Figure 1—figure supplement 1) and utilized SAIGE which employs a scalable generalized logistic mixed model (GLMM) to account for relatedness between individuals and a saddlepoint approximation to avoid inflated type I error seen with case-control imbalance (Zhou et al., 2016a). Clinical characteristics and genetic ancestry of the cases and controls are detailed in Table 1.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Variation at 12q24.21 and 6p21.1 is associated with PUV

To determine the contribution of common and low-frequency variation to PUV, we carried out a seqGWAS using 19,651,224 single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and indels with minor allele frequency (MAF) ≥0.1%. Statistically significant (p<5 × 10^–8) association was detected at two loci (Figure 2 and Table 2). The genomic inflation factor (λ) of 1.04 confirmed population stratification was well controlled in this diverse ancestry cohort, although this may represent an underestimate given the low power of the cohort (Figure 2—figure supplement 1).

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

Joint analysis of common and low-frequency variation (minor allele frequency [MAF] >0.1%) by gene across the exome.

Data generated using the genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics as input to MAGMA. Gene names are given as ENSEMBL Gene IDs and SYMBOL. CHR, chromosome; NSNPS, number of variants annotated to that gene; NPARAM, number of parameters used in the model; N, sample size; ZSTAT, Z-value for the gene based on permutation p-value; P, p-value.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-fig2-data1-v2.txt

Download elife-74777-fig2-data1-v2.txt

Figure 2—source data 2

Joint analysis of common and low-frequency variation (minor allele frequency [MAF] >0.1%) by gene set.

Data generated using the genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics as input to MAGMA.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-fig2-data2-v2.txt

Download elife-74777-fig2-data2-v2.txt

Table 2

				P value		OR (95% CI)		Case EAF		Control EAF
Lead variant	CHR:POS	Effect Allele	Closest gene	Discovery	Replication	Discovery	Replication	Discovery	Replication	Discovery	Replication
rs10774740	chr12:114228397	T	TBX5	7.81x10–12	5.17x10–3	0.4	0.8	0.19	0.31	0.37	0.36
						(0.31–0.52)	(0.68–0.93)
rs144171242	chr6:43120356	G	PTK7	2.02x10–8	7.21x10–3	7.2	2.18	0.05	0.018	0.01	0.008
						(4.08–12.70)	(1.22–3.90)

Table 2—source data 1

Replication study.

The lead variants at the top four loci with p<5 × 10^–7 were genotyped in an independent European cohort of 395 posterior urethral valves (PUV) cases and 4151 controls. p-Values in the replication cohort were calculated using a one-sided Cochran Armitage Trend test. OR, odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-table2-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-74777-table2-data1-v2.xlsx

At 12q24.21, the lead intergenic variant (rs10774740) was common (MAF 0.37) and reached p=7.81 × 10^–12 (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31–0.52; Figure 3). A rare (MAF 0.007) variant (rs144171242) at 6p21.1, located in an intron of PTK7, was also significant at p=2.02 × 10^–8 (OR 7.20; 95% CI 4.08–12.70; Figure 4). The meanDP (mean sequencing depth) and meanGQ (mean genotype quality) at these sites were 33.43 and 133.28, for rs10774740 and 29.34 and 75.59 for rs144171242, respectively, confirming these variants were high-quality calls. Conditional analysis did not identify secondary independent signals at either locus and epistasis was not detected between the two lead variants (p=0.10).

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Due to the male nature of PUV, we also conducted a sex-specific analysis using only male controls (n=10,425) to determine whether any additional signals could be detected by removing females with potentially undetected genitourinary phenotypes. Both lead variants showed stronger evidence of association: rs10774740 at 12q24.21 (p=7.08 × 10^–12; OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.31–0.52) and rs144171242 at 6p21.1 (p=1.79 × 10^–8; OR 7.40; 95% CI 4.14–13.22). No significant associations on chromosome X were identified.

Gene and gene set analysis was carried out to assess the joint effect of common and low-frequency variants and identify potential functional pathways associated with PUV, however, no genes (Figure 2—source data 1) or pathways (Figure 2—source data 2) reached statistical significance after correction for multiple testing.

12q24.21 and 6p21.1 replicate in an independent cohort

We next carried out a replication study in an independent European cohort consisting of 395 individuals with PUV: 333 from Poland and Germany, recruited through the CaRE for LUTO (Cause and Risk Evaluation for Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction) Study, and 62 from the UK; 4151 male individuals recruited to the cancer arm of the 100KGP were used as controls. The ancestry of a subset of cases (n=204) for whom genome-wide genotyping data was available and the control cohort (n=4151) was confirmed as European (Figure 5). The UK PUV patients and the 100KGP cancer control cohort had not been included in the discovery analyses.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

The lead variants at the top four loci with p<5 × 10^–7 were tested for replication. Association at both genome-wide significant lead variants was replicated although with smaller effect sizes (Table 2): rs10774740 (p=5.17 × 10^–3; OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68–0.93) and rs144171242 (p=7.21 × 10^–3; OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.22–3.90). Two further loci with suggestive evidence of association (10q11.2; rs1471950716; p=1.45 × 10^–7 and 14q21.1; rs199975325; p=2.52 × 10^–7) did not replicate (Table 2—source data 1).

To confirm this signal was not being driven by case-control imbalance, we repeated the analysis with 500 male controls (a case:control ratio of 1:1.3). rs10774740 at the 12q24.21 locus remained significant (p=9.9 × 10^–3; OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63–0.94). rs144171242 at the 6p21.1 locus did not reach statistical significance, but this is likely due to insufficient power (p=0.06; OR 2.24; 95% CI 0.93–5.36). For a rare variant such as rs144171242 (MAF 0.007), a replication study with 500 controls is only powered to detect association with variants that have a large effect size (OR >3.5).

Diverse ancestry analysis increases power for discovery

To ascertain whether the observed associations were being driven by a specific ancestry group, we next repeated the seqGWAS using a subgroup of genetically defined European individuals (88 cases and 17,993 controls) and 16,938,500 variants with MAF ≥0.1%. The 12q24.21 locus remained genome-wide significant (Figure 6 and Figure 6—figure supplement 1), however the lead variant (rs2555009) in the region showed weaker association (p=4.02 × 10^–8; OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.12–0.73) than rs10774740, the lead variant in the diverse ancestry analysis (Figure 6—source data 1). Interestingly, the two variants were not in strong linkage disequilibrium (EUR LD; r²=0.55). The lead variant at 6p21.1 from the diverse ancestry analysis did not reach genome-wide significance in the European-only study (rs144171242; p=3.60 × 10^–5; OR 5.90; 95% CI 2.88–12.11) suggesting either that this signal may be being driven partly by non-Europeans or the result of loss of power due to reduced sample size. p-Values and effect sizes were strongly correlated between the diverse ancestry and European-only seqGWAS (Figure 6—figure supplement 2), demonstrating that inclusion of individuals from diverse backgrounds to increase sample size can be an effective way to boost power and discover new disease loci, even in a small cohort.

Figure 6 with 5 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 6—source data 1

Comparison of diverse ancestry and European genome-wide association study (GWAS) association statistics.

The lead variants at the top four loci with p<5 × 10^–7 are shown. OR, odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-74777-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

As the numbers of African, South Asian, and admixed ancestry individuals were too small to reliably carry out subgroup association analyses and subsequent meta-analysis, we instead compared ancestry-specific allele frequencies, effect sizes, and directions for the two lead variants. rs10774740 (T) had a higher allele frequency in individuals of African ancestry (MAF 0.74) compared with European (MAF 0.37) and South Asian (MAF 0.35) populations (Figure 6—figure supplement 3), however the effect size and direction were similar between the groups (Figure 6—figure supplement 4). rs144171242 (G) was present at a lower allele frequency in South Asian (MAF 0.002) compared with European (MAF 0.008) individuals and was not seen in the African ancestry group (Figure 6—figure supplement 3). The effect size of this rare variant was higher in the South Asian than European population (Figure 6—figure supplement 4), which may explain why it only reached genome-wide significance after inclusion of South Asian individuals. Finally, comparison with population allele frequencies from gnomAD (Karczewski et al., 2020) demonstrated that although there is large variation in the allele frequency of rs10774740 between ancestries this is away from, not towards, the case allele frequency and suggests that the detected associations are not being driven by differences in allele frequency between populations (Figure 6—figure supplement 3).

rs10774740 is associated with prostate cancer and female genitourinary phenotypes

Interrogation of the NHGR/EBI GWAS Catalog (MacArthur et al., 2017) revealed that the risk allele rs10774740 (G) is associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness (Berndt et al., 2015; p=3 × 10^–10; OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09–1.18). PheWAS data from the UK Biobank demonstrated that the protective allele rs10774740 (T) also has a protective effect in female genitourinary phenotypes (Figure 7): urinary incontinence (p=8.3 × 10^–12; OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.87–0.92), female stress incontinence (p=7.9 × 10^–10; OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85–0.92), genital prolapse (p=1.1 × 10^–9; OR 0.92; CI 0.89–0.94) and symptoms involving the female genital tract (p=1.7 × 10^–8; OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.87–0.94). No significant phenotypic associations affecting other organ systems were seen. These data therefore provide independent validation of a role for TBX5 in urogenital phenotypes. No known GWAS or PheWAS associations were identified for rs144171242, which is likely too rare to be genotyped or imputed in previous GWAS.

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

TBX5 and PTK7 proteins are detected in the developing urinary tract

To determine whether TBX5 and PTK7 proteins can be detected during urinary tract development, immunohistochemistry was undertaken in a 7-week gestation normal human embryo (Figure 8). At this stage of development, the urogenital sinus is a tube composed of epithelia that will differentiate into urothelial cells of the proximal urethra and the urinary bladder. Uroplakin 1B, a water-proofing protein, was detected in urogenital sinus epithelia (Figure 8B). PTK7 was detected in epithelia lining the urogenital sinus, and intensely in stromal-like cells surrounding the mesonephric ducts (Figure 8C). TBX5 was detected in a nuclear pattern in a subset of epithelial cells lining the urogenital sinus (Figure 8D). Omission of primary antibodies resulted in absent signals, as expected (Figure 8E). Immunostaining of a second human embryo at the same stage of gestation produced similar results, with a prominent signal for PTK7 in stromal cells surrounding the mesonephric duct and a subset of nuclei in the epithelium of the urogenital sinus stained for TBX5 (Figure 8—figure supplement 1).

Figure 8 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Monogenic causes of PUV are uncommon

Having identified two novel gene associations through single-variant association testing, we next aimed to determine whether there was any gene-based enrichment of rare coding variation in this PUV cohort. Single-variant association tests can be underpowered when variants are rare and collapsing variant data into specific regions or genes can increase power and aid gene discovery.

We therefore aggregated rare (gnomAD allele frequency [AF]<0.1% [Karczewski et al., 2020]), predicted deleterious [protein-truncating, or CADD ≥20 [Rentzsch et al., 2019]] SNVs and small indels by gene, comparing the burden between cases and controls on an exome-wide basis. No significant enrichment was detected in any of the 19,161 protein-coding genes analysed after correction for multiple testing (Figure 9 and Figure 9—figure supplement 1). The median number of variants tested per gene was 41 (IQR 47). None of the genes previously associated with congenital bladder outflow obstruction showed evidence of enrichment: BNC2 (congenital lower urinary tract obstruction, MIM 618612); FLNA (frontometaphyseal dysplasia, MIM 305620); HPSE2 and LRIG2 (urofacial syndrome, MIM 236730/615112); CHRM3 (prune-belly syndrome, MIM 100100); MYOCD (megabladder, MIM 618719). Despite the limited power of this cohort, the lack of gene-based enrichment seen is consistent with an absence of proven Mendelian causes of non-syndromic PUV.

Figure 9 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 9—source data 1

Exome-wide rare coding variant analysis by gene.

p-Values generated using SAIGE-GENE and the SKAT-O rare variant test.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-fig9-data1-v2.txt

Download elife-74777-fig9-data1-v2.txt

Structural variation affecting cis-regulatory elements is enriched

Large, rare CNVs have been identified in patients with PUV using conventional microarrays (Boghossian et al., 2016; Caruana et al., 2016; Faure et al., 2016; Verbitsky et al., 2019), however high-coverage WGS enables detection of smaller structural variants (SVs) with superior resolution (Gross et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2016c), and allows the identification of balanced rearrangements including inversions. We therefore aimed to test for association with different types of SVs, by comparing the burden of rare (MAF <0.1%), autosomal SVs on an exome-wide and cis-regulatory element basis.

We first focused our analysis on rare SVs that were potentially gene-disrupting by extracting those that intersected with at least one exon. Although we observed an increased burden of all SV types in cases compared with controls, this only reached statistical significance for inversions (p=2.1 × 10^–3) when corrected for the multiple SV comparisons performed (Table 3). No difference in SV size between the cohorts was seen. Furthermore, exome-wide gene-based burden analysis did not detect any gene-level enrichment of rare SVs overall or when stratified by type, indicating that, in this cohort at least, rare structural variation does not appear to affect any single gene recurrently.

Table 3

		EXON		cCRE
		PUV	Controls	PUV	Controls
CNV	n (%)	109 (82.6)	17,961 (75.7)	111 (84.1)	18,773 (79.1)
	OR (CI)	1.52 (0.96–2.50)		1.39 (0.87–2.34)
	Fisher’s exact p	0.07		0.2
	Median size (kb) (IQR)	104 (183)	94 (158)	80 (165)	80 (128)
	p (Wilcoxon)	0.75		0.75
DEL	n (%)	117 (88.6)	19,987 (84.2)	132 (100)	23,031 (97.1)
	OR (CI)	1.46 (0.85–2.69)		Inf
	Fisher’s exact p	0.19		0.04
	Median size (kb) (IQR)	1.4 (4.2)	1.8 (4.6)	1.5 (4.1)	1.9 (4.5)
	p (Wilcoxon)	0.18		4.1×10–4
DUP	n (%)	59 (44.7)	8,476 (35.7)	104 (78.8)	16,004 (67.5)
	OR (CI)	1.45 (1.01–2.08)		1.79 (1.17–2.83)
	Fisher’s exact p	0.04		5.0×10–3
	Median size (kb) (IQR)	3.7 (5.7)	3.0 (5.6)	2.0 (5.3)	2.3 (5.3)
	p (Wilcoxon)	0.16		0.49
INV	n (%)	66 (50.0)	8,736 (36.8)	81 (61.4)	11,171 (47.1)
	OR (CI)	1.72 (1.20–2.45)		1.79 (1.24–2.59)
	Fisher’s exact p	2.1×10–3		1.2×10–3
	Median size (kb) (IQR)	253 (1931)	261 (1642)	129 (459)	94 (779)
	p (Wilcoxon)	0.44		0.12

Given the tightly controlled transcriptional networks that govern embryogenesis, we hypothesized that regulatory regions may be preferentially affected by rare structural variation. To investigate this, we identified rare (MAF <0.1%), autosomal SVs that intersected with 926,535 genome-wide cCREs curated by ENCODE (Moore et al., 2020). A significant enrichment of cCRE-intersecting SVs was observed for inversions (61.4% vs. 47.1%, p=1.2 × 10^–3) and duplications (78.8% vs. 67.5%, p=5.0 × 10^–3) (Table 3). While the median size of inversions was larger in cases, this was not statistically significant (129 kb vs. 94 kb, p=0.12).

To further characterize this enrichment, we repeated the burden analysis stratifying by cCRE subtype (distal enhancer-like signature [dELS], proximal enhancer-like signature [pELS], promoter-like signature [PLS], CTCF-only and DNase-H3K4me3) and demonstrated a consistent signal across all cCREs for inversions (Figure 10), most significantly affecting CTCF-only elements (49.2% vs. 31.7%, p=3.1 × 10^–5, Figure 10—source data 1). These elements act as chromatin loop anchors suggesting that inversions affecting these regions may potentially alter long-range regulatory mechanisms mediated by chromatin conformation. Duplications affecting pELS elements were also significantly enriched in cases (29.5% vs. 16.8%, p=2.7 × 10^–4).

Figure 10

Download asset Open asset

Figure 10—source data 1

Structural variant cCRE analysis.

The burden of rare autosomal structural variants intersecting with each cis-regulatory element type was compared between 132 cases and 23,727 controls. cCRE, candidate cis-regulatory element; CNV, copy number variant; DEL, deletion; DUP, duplication; INV, inversion; dELS, distal enhancer-like signature; pELS, proximal enhancer-like signature; PLS, promoter-like signature; OR, odds ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/74777/elife-74777-fig10-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-74777-fig10-data1-v2.xlsx

Using a seqGWAS we have identified the first robust genetic associations of PUV, implicating TBX5 and PTK7 in its underlying pathogenesis. We detected an enrichment of rare structural variation affecting cCREs and demonstrate that monogenic causes of PUV are not a common feature, at least within this cohort. We also show that a well-controlled diverse ancestry WGS approach can increase power for disease locus discovery in rare disease and facilitate the fine mapping of causal variants.

The majority of genetic association studies are carried out in individuals of European ancestry, however with WGS allowing unbiased variant detection combined with the use of appropriate statistical methodology to mitigate confounding by population structure, it is widely recognized that increasing ancestral diversity in genetic studies is scientifically and ethically necessary (Fatumo et al., 2022; Peterson et al., 2019). On this basis we opted to combine individuals regardless of ancestral background, including a greater proportion of non-White individuals than is present in the UK (87% individuals are recorded as ‘White’ in the 2011 UK census [General Register Office for Scotland, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Office for National Statistics, Census Division, 2020]), suggesting mitigation of the Euro-centric bias present in most previous genomic studies, at least with respect to the UK population. We used a generalized mixed model association test with saddlepoint approximation to maximize the signal from the resulting diverse ancestry, case-control imbalanced dataset.

We identified a significant protective effect of the common variant rs10774740 (T), highlighting that common variants can contribute to an individual’s risk of a rare disease, as is increasingly being recognized (Niemi et al., 2018). The effect size and direction were consistent between African, European, and South Asian ancestries, despite differences in allele frequency between the population groups. Using experimentally determined chromatin interaction data from mesendoderm cells, we mapped this locus to the promoter of the transcription factor TBX5, rare variants of which cause autosomal-dominant Holt-Oram syndrome (MIM 142900), characterized by congenital cardiac septal defects and upper-limb anomalies (Basson et al., 1997; Li et al., 1997).

The association of the risk allele (G) with prostate cancer aggressiveness in men and genital prolapse and urinary incontinence in women raises the intriguing possibility that TBX5, which shows moderate expression in the adult bladder, is also associated with lower urinary tract phenotypes in adults. These findings are consistent with the observation that variation in genes associated with other developmental anomalies have been linked to malignancy in the same organ (Su et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2017), highlighting the shared molecular pathways driving both embryogenesis and cancer.

We also identified an association of the rare variant rs144171242 with PUV, located in an intron of PTK7 and predicted to have regulatory activity in mesendoderm cells. Given its rarity, this association would not have been detected using a conventional array-based GWAS approach, highlighting the utility of seqGWAS. The inclusion of South Asian individuals, in whom the effect size of rs144171242 is larger, increased our power to detect association which was not genome-wide significant in the European-only analysis. PTK7 (protein tyrosine kinase 7) is an evolutionarily conserved transmembrane receptor required for vertebrate embryonic patterning and morphogenesis, and a key regulator of planar cell polarity (PCP) via the non-canonical Wnt pathway (Berger et al., 2017). The PCP pathway is critical for determining the orientation of cells in the plane of an epithelium, regulating a process called convergent extension whereby cells intercalate by converging in one axis and elongating in the perpendicular axis. Altered expression of PTK7 was initially observed in cancer (Dunn and Tolwinski, 2016; Mossie et al., 1995), but rare missense variants in PTK7 have since been linked to neural tube defects (Lei et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2015) and scoliosis (Hayes et al., 2014) in both humans and animal models, confirming a role in embryonic development.

Aberrations of mesonephric duct and urogenital sinus maturation have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PUV (Krishnan et al., 2006). Our observations that TBX5 and PTK7 are present at the appropriate timepoint during normal human embryogenesis, in or around the mesonephric ducts and urogenital sinus, suggest that altered regulation of expression of either may perturb the normal development of these structures. Further functional studies will however be necessary to provide definitive evidence of a role for these proteins in urinary tract development. Interestingly, mesoderm-specific conditional deletion of Ptk7 in mice has been shown to affect convergent extension and tubular morphogenesis of the mesonephric duct at E18.5, leading to a shortened duct with increased diameter and reduced coiling, resulting in male sterility (Xu et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2016). Whether similar disruption in mesonephric duct morphogenesis is seen at E14 (corresponding to development of the urethra) remains to be seen but may provide further insights into the biological mechanisms underpinning PUV.

PUV is a male-limited phenotype, although urethral abnormalities have been reported in the female relatives of affected males (Kolvenbach et al., 2019). This sexual dimorphism is most likely the result of anatomical differences in the development and length of the urethra between males and females, with the association between rs10774740 at the TBX5 locus and female genital prolapse and urinary incontinence suggesting that females may also manifest lower urinary tract phenotypes. While X-linked inheritance has been reported in two patients with syndromic PUV (Wade et al., 2021), we detected no significant common or rare variant associations on chromosome X in this cohort to suggest that genetics underpin the male specific nature of this condition.

Rare CNVs, detected using a microarray-based approach, have recently been shown to be enriched in patients with kidney and urinary tract anomalies, but were not found to be enriched in 141 PUV patients (Verbitsky et al., 2019). Similarly, we did not identify an increased burden of rare CNVs in individuals with PUV, but we did observe a higher number of rare, exonic CNVs than Verbitsky et al. (2019) (82.6% vs. 32.6%), most likely reflecting the increased sensitivity and resolution of WGS for SV detection as well as the difference in size threshold for inclusion (>10 kb compared with >100 kb). Importantly, none of the CNVs recurrently affected a particular gene in our cohort which, in combination with the lack of gene-based enrichment seen in our rare SNV/indel analysis, suggests that monogenic causes of PUV are rare, although our sample size would be underpowered to detect significant genetic heterogeneity.

Intriguingly, we demonstrated an enrichment of rare duplications and inversions affecting cCREs. Genomic duplications have previously been linked with PUV (Schierbaum et al., 2021; Verbitsky et al., 2019) but this is the first study to examine balanced inversions in a PUV cohort. Current understanding of the functional relevance of inversions is limited as the balanced nature and location of breakpoints within complex repeat regions make detection challenging (Puig et al., 2015). Inversions can directly disrupt coding sequences or regulatory elements, as well as predispose to other SVs, and have been associated with hemophilia A (Lakich et al., 1993), Hunter syndrome (Bondeson et al., 2016), neurodegenerative (Webb et al., 2008) and autoimmune disease (Namjou et al., 2021; Salm et al., 2012). The strongest signal we observed was for inversions affecting CTCF-only regions, potentially implicating disrupted chromatin looping in the underlying pathogenesis of PUV and raising the interesting possibility that non-specific perturbation of long-range regulatory networks or TADs could manifest as PUV, perhaps due to sensitivity of integration of the mesonephric duct into the posterior urethra to even minor abnormalities of gene expression. While the SV analyses described here generate some interesting hypotheses, these findings should be considered exploratory until they can be replicated in an independent cohort.

In summary, we have shown that both rare and common variation can contribute to an individual’s risk of PUV, and that structural variation affecting regulatory networks may also play a role. Given that PUV does not usually exhibit a Mendelian pattern of inheritance, our data provides support for a complex genetic architecture for this rare disorder, where different types of genetic variation across the allele frequency spectrum may interact to influence susceptibility. Better powered studies will be needed to identify additional genetic risk factors with smaller effect sizes and to explore how these variants might be influenced by maternal or in utero factors (Nicolaou et al., 2015).

This study has several strengths. WGS enables ancestry-independent variant detection, uniform genome-wide coverage, improved SV resolution and detection, as well as direct sequencing of underlying causal variants. Using case-control data from over 20,000 individuals sequenced on the same platform also minimizes confounding by technical artefacts. Inclusion of diverse ancestries increased our power to detect both novel associations and the underlying causal variant, with the lack of genomic inflation and subsequent replication indicating these associations are robust. Furthermore, we integrated seqGWAS, epigenomic and chromatin interaction data to ascertain the functional relevance of loci and identify biologically plausible genes, validated by detection of the relevant proteins at the appropriate site and developmental stage.

A limitation of this study is its relatively low statistical power to detect association due to the limited size of the cohort; sufficient power exists to detect low-frequency variants with large effects (e.g., MAF 1% with OR >7.5), but rare variants, or those with smaller effect sizes, may be missed with this sample size (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Future meta-analyses will be necessary to identify additional loci, as well as expanded efforts to recruit non-Europeans given the low absolute numbers of non-European cases in this study. Furthermore, while WGS offers improved SV resolution over microarrays, false positives may occur and are dependent on the SV calling algorithm used. Ideally, long-read sequencing and independent validation would provide more comprehensive SV detection, especially of larger variants in complex, repetitive and GC-rich regions. Finally, although we have assessed the relevance of the associated loci using bioinformatic approaches and shown that publicly available and our own experimental data support the association, the biological mechanisms linking these genes with PUV have yet to be elucidated.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to utilize diverse ancestry WGS for association testing in a rare disease. Combining WGS data across ancestries increased power to detect the first two robust genetic associations for PUV and identified the likely causal variants through enhanced fine mapping. Finally, integration of functional genomic and experimental data implicated TBX5 and PTK7 in the pathogenesis of PUV, providing new insights into the biological pathways underlying this important but poorly understood disorder.

All genetic and phenotypic data from the 100,000 Genomes Project and can be accessed by application to Genomics England Ltd (https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/about-gecip/joining-research-community/). Access is free for academic research institutions and universities as well as public and private healthcare organisations that undertake significant research activity. This dataset includes de-identified, linked information for each participant including genome sequence data, variant call files, phenotype/clinical data and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) with access gained through a secure Research Environment. No sequencing or identifiable personal data is available for download. The full GWAS summary statistics have been uploaded to the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog (http://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/gwas/summary_statistics/GCST90134001-GCST90135000/GCST90134254). Source data files have been provided for Figures 2, 6, 9 and 10 containing the numerical data used to generate figures. Code for SAIGE and SAIGE-GENE can be found at https://github.com/weizhouUMICH/SAIGE, (copy archived at swh:1:rev:a41727267cb5f843a4446e4d4809cafc72687a5d). Code for PAINTOR is available at https://github.com/gkichaev/PAINTOR_V3.0, (copy archived at swh:1:rev:ffce82a7114eeb98220db39ba5d6b69e5a419a9e) Functional annotation and MAGMA gene and gene-set analysis were performed using the web-based platform FUMA (https://fuma.ctglab.nl). Custom R Code for the case-control ancestry-matching and structural variant burden analysis have been uploaded as Source code 1 (ancestry matching) and Source code 2 (SV burden testing).

1. 1. Chan MMY
   2. Sadeghi-Alavijeh O
   3. Genomics England Research Consortium
   4. Levine AP
   5. Bockenhauer D
   6. Gale DP

   (2022) GWAS Catalog

   ID GCST90134254. PUV Summary Statistics.

   http://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/gwas/summary_statistics/GCST90134001-GCST90135000/GCST90134254

1. 1. Dixon JR
   2. Jung I
   3. Selvaraj S

   (2015) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE52457. Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE52457
2. 1. Buniello A
   2. MacArthur JAL
   3. Cerezo M

   (2019) GWAS Catalog

   ID GCST002890. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog of published genome-wide association studies, targeted arrays and summary statistics 2019.

   https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/studies/GCST002890

1. 1. Auton A
   2. Brooks LD
   3. Durbin RM
   4. Garrison EP
   5. Kang HM
   6. Korbel JO
   7. Marchini JL
   8. McCarthy S
   9. McVean GA
   10. Abecasis GR
   11. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium

   (2015) A global reference for human genetic variation

   Nature 526:68–74.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15393

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Basson CT
   2. Bachinsky DR
   3. Lin RC
   4. Levi T
   5. Elkins JA
   6. Soults J
   7. Grayzel D
   8. Kroumpouzou E
   9. Traill TA
   10. Leblanc-Straceski J
   11. Renault B
   12. Kucherlapati R
   13. Seidman JG
   14. Seidman CE

   (1997) Mutations in human tbx5 [corrected] cause limb and cardiac malformation in holt-oram syndrome

   Nature Genetics 15:30–35.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0197-30

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Berger H
   2. Wodarz A
   3. Borchers A

   (2017) PTK7 faces the wnt in development and disease

   Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 5:31.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2017.00031

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Berndt SI
   2. Wang Z
   3. Yeager M
   4. Alavanja MC
   5. Albanes D
   6. Amundadottir L
   7. Andriole G
   8. Beane Freeman L
   9. Campa D
   10. Cancel-Tassin G
   11. Canzian F
   12. Cornu JN
   13. Cussenot O
   14. Diver WR
   15. Gapstur SM
   16. Grönberg H
   17. Haiman CA
   18. Henderson B
   19. Hutchinson A
   20. Hunter DJ
   21. Key TJ
   22. Kolb S
   23. Koutros S
   24. Kraft P
   25. Le Marchand L
   26. Lindström S
   27. Machiela MJ
   28. Ostrander EA
   29. Riboli E
   30. Schumacher F
   31. Siddiq A
   32. Stanford JL
   33. Stevens VL
   34. Travis RC
   35. Tsilidis KK
   36. Virtamo J
   37. Weinstein S
   38. Wilkund F
   39. Xu J
   40. Lilly Zheng S
   41. Yu K
   42. Wheeler W
   43. Zhang H
   44. Sampson J
   45. Black A
   46. Jacobs K
   47. Hoover RN
   48. Tucker M
   49. Chanock SJ
   50. African Ancestry Prostate Cancer GWAS Consortium

   (2015) Two susceptibility loci identified for prostate cancer aggressiveness

   Nature Communications 6:6889.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7889

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Boghossian NS
   2. Sicko RJ
   3. Kay DM
   4. Rigler SL
   5. Caggana M
   6. Tsai MY
   7. Yeung EH
   8. Pankratz N
   9. Cole BR
   10. Druschel CM
   11. Romitti PA
   12. Browne ML
   13. Fan R
   14. Liu A
   15. Brody LC
   16. Mills JL

   (2016) Rare copy number variants implicated in posterior urethral valves

   American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 170:622–633.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37493

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bondeson ML
   2. Dahl N
   3. Malmgren H
   4. Kleijer WJ
   5. Tönnesen T
   6. Carlberg BM
   7. Pettersson U

   (2016) Inversion of the IDS gene resulting from recombination with IDS-related sequences in a common cause of the hunter syndrome

   Human Molecular Genetics 4:615–621.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/4.4.615

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Boyle AP
   2. Hong EL
   3. Hariharan M
   4. Cheng Y
   5. Schaub MA
   6. Kasowski M
   7. Karczewski KJ
   8. Park J
   9. Hitz BC
   10. Weng S
   11. Cherry JM
   12. Snyder M

   (2016) Annotation of functional variation in personal genomes using regulomedb

   Genome Research 22:1790–1797.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.137323.112

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Brownlee E
   2. Wragg R
   3. Robb A
   4. Chandran H
   5. Knight M
   6. McCarthy L

   (2019) Current epidemiology and antenatal presentation of posterior urethral valves: outcome of BAPS CASS national audit

   Journal of Pediatric Surgery 54:318–321.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.10.091

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Caruana G
   2. Wong MN
   3. Walker A
   4. Heloury Y
   5. Webb N
   6. Johnstone L
   7. James PA
   8. Burgess T
   9. Bertram JF

   (2016) Copy-number variation associated with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract

   Pediatric Nephrology 30:487–495.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-014-2962-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Chang CC
    2. Chow CC
    3. Tellier LC
    4. Vattikuti S
    5. Purcell SM
    6. Lee JJ

    (2015) Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets

    GigaScience 4:7.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Chen X
    2. Schulz-Trieglaff O
    3. Shaw R
    4. Barnes B
    5. Schlesinger F
    6. Källberg M
    7. Cox AJ
    8. Kruglyak S
    9. Saunders CT

    (2016a) Manta: rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications

    Bioinformatics 32:1220–1222.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv710

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen H
    2. Wang C
    3. Conomos MP
    4. Stilp AM
    5. Li Z
    6. Sofer T
    7. Szpiro AA
    8. Chen W
    9. Brehm JM
    10. Celedón JC
    11. Redline S
    12. Papanicolaou GJ
    13. Thornton TA
    14. Laurie CC
    15. Rice K
    16. Lin X

    (2016b) Control for population structure and relatedness for binary traits in genetic association studies via logistic mixed models

    American Journal of Human Genetics 98:653–666.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.02.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chiaramonte C
    2. Bommarito D
    3. Zambaiti E
    4. Antona V
    5. Li Voti G

    (2016) Genetic basis of posterior urethral valves inheritance

    Urology 95:175–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Consortium G

    (2020) The gtex consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues

    Science 369:1318–1330.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz1776

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cooper GM
    2. Coe BP
    3. Girirajan S
    4. Rosenfeld JA
    5. Vu TH
    6. Baker C
    7. Williams C
    8. Stalker H
    9. Hamid R
    10. Hannig V
    11. Abdel-Hamid H
    12. Bader P
    13. McCracken E
    14. Niyazov D
    15. Leppig K
    16. Thiese H
    17. Hummel M
    18. Alexander N
    19. Gorski J
    20. Kussmann J
    21. Shashi V
    22. Johnson K
    23. Rehder C
    24. Ballif BC
    25. Shaffer LG
    26. Eichler EE

    (2011) A copy number variation morbidity map of developmental delay

    Nature Genetics 43:838–846.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.909

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Daly SB
    2. Urquhart JE
    3. Hilton E
    4. McKenzie EA
    5. Kammerer RA
    6. Lewis M
    7. Kerr B
    8. Stuart H
    9. Donnai D
    10. Long DA
    11. Burgu B
    12. Aydogdu O
    13. Derbent M
    14. Garcia-Minaur S
    15. Reardon W
    16. Gener B
    17. Shalev S
    18. Smith R
    19. Woolf AS
    20. Black GC
    21. Newman WG

    (2010) Mutations in HPSE2 cause urofacial syndrome

    American Journal of Human Genetics 86:963–969.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.05.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Danecek P
    2. Bonfield JK
    3. Liddle J
    4. Marshall J
    5. Ohan V
    6. Pollard MO
    7. Whitwham A
    8. Keane T
    9. McCarthy SA
    10. Davies RM
    11. Li H

    (2021) Twelve years of samtools and bcftools

    GigaScience 10:giab008.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giab008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. de Leeuw CA
    2. Mooij JM
    3. Heskes T
    4. Posthuma D
    5. Tang H

    (2015) MAGMA: generalized gene-set analysis of GWAS data

    PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004219.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004219

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. DeFoor W
    2. Clark C
    3. Jackson E
    4. Reddy P
    5. Minevich E
    6. Sheldon C

    (2008) Risk factors for end stage renal disease in children with posterior urethral valves

    The Journal of Urology 180:1705–1708.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.090

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Demirkan H

    (2021) An unusual urological manifestation of williams-beuren syndrome: posterior urethral valve

    Urologia Internationalis 105:159–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000510529

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dey R
    2. Schmidt EM
    3. Abecasis GR
    4. Lee S

    (2017) A fast and accurate algorithm to test for binary phenotypes and its application to phewas

    American Journal of Human Genetics 101:37–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.05.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dixon JR
    2. Jung I
    3. Selvaraj S
    4. Shen Y
    5. Antosiewicz-Bourget JE
    6. Lee AY
    7. Ye Z
    8. Kim A
    9. Rajagopal N
    10. Xie W
    11. Diao Y
    12. Liang J
    13. Zhao H
    14. Lobanenkov VV
    15. Ecker JR
    16. Thomson JA
    17. Ren B

    (2015) Chromatin architecture reorganization during stem cell differentiation

    Nature 518:331–336.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14222

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Dunn NR
    2. Tolwinski NS

    (2016) Ptk7 and mcc, unfancied components in non-canonical wnt signaling and cancer

    Cancers 8:E68.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers8070068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Ernst J
    2. Kellis M

    (2012) ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization

    Nature Methods 9:215–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1906

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fatumo S
    2. Chikowore T
    3. Choudhury A
    4. Ayub M
    5. Martin AR
    6. Kuchenbaecker K

    (2022) A roadmap to increase diversity in genomic studies

    Nature Medicine 28:243–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01672-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Faure A
    2. Bouty A
    3. Caruana G
    4. Williams L
    5. Burgess T
    6. Wong MN
    7. James PA
    8. O’Brien M
    9. Walker A
    10. Bertram JF
    11. Heloury Y

    (2016) DNA copy number variants: A potentially useful predictor of early onset renal failure in boys with posterior urethral valves

    Journal of Pediatric Urology 12:227.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.02.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Fornes O
    2. Castro-Mondragon JA
    3. Khan A
    4. van der Lee R
    5. Zhang X
    6. Richmond PA
    7. Modi BP
    8. Correard S
    9. Gheorghe M
    10. Baranašić D
    11. Santana-Garcia W
    12. Tan G
    13. Chèneby J
    14. Ballester B
    15. Parcy F
    16. Sandelin A
    17. Lenhard B
    18. Wasserman WW
    19. Mathelier A

    (2020) JASPAR 2020: update of the open-access database of transcription factor binding profiles

    Nucleic Acids Research 48:D87–D92.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz1001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Frankish A
    2. Diekhans M
    3. Ferreira AM
    4. Johnson R
    5. Jungreis I
    6. Loveland J
    7. Mudge JM
    8. Sisu C
    9. Wright J
    10. Armstrong J
    11. Barnes I
    12. Berry A
    13. Bignell A
    14. Carbonell Sala S
    15. Chrast J
    16. Cunningham F
    17. Di Domenico T
    18. Donaldson S
    19. Fiddes IT
    20. García Girón C
    21. Gonzalez JM
    22. Grego T
    23. Hardy M
    24. Hourlier T
    25. Hunt T
    26. Izuogu OG
    27. Lagarde J
    28. Martin FJ
    29. Martínez L
    30. Mohanan S
    31. Muir P
    32. Navarro FCP
    33. Parker A
    34. Pei B
    35. Pozo F
    36. Ruffier M
    37. Schmitt BM
    38. Stapleton E
    39. Suner MM
    40. Sycheva I
    41. Uszczynska-Ratajczak B
    42. Xu J
    43. Yates A
    44. Zerbino D
    45. Zhang Y
    46. Aken B
    47. Choudhary JS
    48. Gerstein M
    49. Guigó R
    50. Hubbard TJP
    51. Kellis M
    52. Paten B
    53. Reymond A
    54. Tress ML
    55. Flicek P

    (2019) GENCODE reference annotation for the human and mouse genomes

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:D766–D773.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky955

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Frese S
    2. Weigert A
    3. Hoppe B
    4. Feldkötter M
    5. Ludwig M
    6. Weber S
    7. Kiliś-Pstrusińska K
    8. Zaniew M
    9. Reutter H
    10. Hilger AC

    (2019) A classic twin study of lower urinary tract obstruction: report of 3 cases and literature review

    Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms 11:O85–O88.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12222

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. Data

    1. General Register Office for Scotland, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Office for National Statistics, Census Division

    (authors) (2020) 2001 Census: Aggregate Data

    UK Data Service.

    https://doi.org/10.5257/census/aggregate-2001-2
31. 1. Gogarten SM
    2. Bhangale T
    3. Conomos MP
    4. Laurie CA
    5. McHugh CP
    6. Painter I
    7. Zheng X
    8. Crosslin DR
    9. Levine D
    10. Lumley T
    11. Nelson SC
    12. Rice K
    13. Shen J
    14. Swarnkar R
    15. Weir BS
    16. Laurie CC

    (2012) GWASTools: an R/bioconductor package for quality control and analysis of genome-wide association studies

    Bioinformatics 28:3329–3331.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts610

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Gross AM
    2. Ajay SS
    3. Rajan V
    4. Brown C
    5. Bluske K
    6. Burns NJ
    7. Chawla A
    8. Coffey AJ
    9. Malhotra A
    10. Scocchia A
    11. Thorpe E
    12. Dzidic N
    13. Hovanes K
    14. Sahoo T
    15. Dolzhenko E
    16. Lajoie B
    17. Khouzam A
    18. Chowdhury S
    19. Belmont J
    20. Roller E
    21. Ivakhno S
    22. Tanner S
    23. McEachern J
    24. Hambuch T
    25. Eberle M
    26. Hagelstrom RT
    27. Bentley DR
    28. Perry DL
    29. Taft RJ

    (2019) Copy-number variants in clinical genome sequencing: deployment and interpretation for rare and undiagnosed disease

    Genetics in Medicine 21:1121–1130.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0295-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hayes M
    2. Gao X
    3. Yu LX
    4. Paria N
    5. Henkelman RM
    6. Wise CA
    7. Ciruna B

    (2014) Ptk7 mutant zebrafish models of congenital and idiopathic scoliosis implicate dysregulated wnt signalling in disease

    Nature Communications 5:4777.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5777

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Heikkilä J
    2. Holmberg C
    3. Kyllönen L
    4. Rintala R
    5. Taskinen S

    (2011) Long-term risk of end stage renal disease in patients with posterior urethral valves

    Journal of Urology 186:2392–2396.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Höglund J
    2. Rafati N
    3. Rask-Andersen M
    4. Enroth S
    5. Karlsson T
    6. Ek WE
    7. Johansson Å

    (2019) Improved power and precision with whole genome sequencing data in genome-wide association studies of inflammatory biomarkers

    Scientific Reports 9:16844.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53111-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Houcinat N
    2. Llanas B
    3. Moutton S
    4. Toutain J
    5. Cailley D
    6. Arveiler B
    7. Combe C
    8. Lacombe D
    9. Rooryck C

    (2011) Homozygous 16p13.11 duplication associated with mild intellectual disability and urinary tract malformations in two siblings born from consanguineous parents

    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 167:2714–2719.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.37212

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Houweling AC
    2. Beaman GM
    3. Postma AV
    4. Gainous TB
    5. Lichtenbelt KD
    6. Brancati F
    7. Lopes FM
    8. van der Made I
    9. Polstra AM
    10. Robinson ML
    11. Wright KD
    12. Ellingford JM
    13. Jackson AR
    14. Overwater E
    15. Genesio R
    16. Romano S
    17. Camerota L
    18. D’Angelo E
    19. Meijers-Heijboer EJ
    20. Christoffels VM
    21. McHugh KM
    22. Black BL
    23. Newman WG
    24. Woolf AS
    25. Creemers EE

    (2011) Loss-of-function variants in myocardin cause congenital megabladder in humans and mice

    Journal of Clinical Investigation 129:5374–5380.

    https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI128545

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Jeffares DC
    2. Jolly C
    3. Hoti M
    4. Speed D
    5. Shaw L
    6. Rallis C
    7. Balloux F
    8. Dessimoz C
    9. Bähler J
    10. Sedlazeck FJ

    (2017) Transient structural variations have strong effects on quantitative traits and reproductive isolation in fission yeast

    Nature Communications 8:14061.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Karczewski KJ
    2. Francioli LC
    3. Tiao G
    4. Cummings BB
    5. Alföldi J
    6. Wang Q
    7. Collins RL
    8. Laricchia KM
    9. Ganna A
    10. Birnbaum DP
    11. Gauthier LD
    12. Brand H
    13. Solomonson M
    14. Watts NA
    15. Rhodes D
    16. Singer-Berk M
    17. England EM
    18. Seaby EG
    19. Kosmicki JA
    20. Walters RK
    21. Tashman K
    22. Farjoun Y
    23. Banks E
    24. Poterba T
    25. Wang A
    26. Seed C
    27. Whiffin N
    28. Chong JX
    29. Samocha KE
    30. Pierce-Hoffman E
    31. Zappala Z
    32. O’Donnell-Luria AH
    33. Minikel EV
    34. Weisburd B
    35. Lek M
    36. Ware JS
    37. Vittal C
    38. Armean IM
    39. Bergelson L
    40. Cibulskis K
    41. Connolly KM
    42. Covarrubias M
    43. Donnelly S
    44. Ferriera S
    45. Gabriel S
    46. Gentry J
    47. Gupta N
    48. Jeandet T
    49. Kaplan D
    50. Llanwarne C
    51. Munshi R
    52. Novod S
    53. Petrillo N
    54. Roazen D
    55. Ruano-Rubio V
    56. Saltzman A
    57. Schleicher M
    58. Soto J
    59. Tibbetts K
    60. Tolonen C
    61. Wade G
    62. Talkowski ME
    63. Neale BM
    64. Daly MJ
    65. MacArthur DG
    66. Genome Aggregation Database Consortium

    (2020) The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans

    Nature 581:434–443.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kent WJ
    2. Sugnet CW
    3. Furey TS
    4. Roskin KM
    5. Pringle TH
    6. Zahler AM
    7. Haussler D

    (2002) The human genome browser at UCSC

    Genome Research 12:996–1006.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.229102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Khalil A
    2. Al-Haddad C
    3. Hariri H
    4. Shibbani K
    5. Bitar F
    6. Kurban M
    7. Nemer G
    8. Arabi M

    (2017) A novel mutation in foxc1 in A lebanese family with congenital heart disease and anterior segment dysgenesis: potential roles for nfatc1 and dpt in the phenotypic variations

    Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 4:58.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2017.00058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kichaev G
    2. Yang WY
    3. Lindstrom S
    4. Hormozdiari F
    5. Eskin E
    6. Price AL
    7. Kraft P
    8. Pasaniuc B
    9. Di Rienzo A

    (2020) Integrating functional data to prioritize causal variants in statistical fine-mapping studies

    PLOS Genetics 10:e1004722.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004722

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Köhler S
    2. Gargano M
    3. Matentzoglu N
    4. Carmody LC
    5. Lewis-Smith D
    6. Vasilevsky NA
    7. Danis D
    8. Balagura G
    9. Baynam G
    10. Brower AM
    11. Callahan TJ
    12. Chute CG
    13. Est JL
    14. Galer PD
    15. Ganesan S
    16. Griese M
    17. Haimel M
    18. Pazmandi J
    19. Hanauer M
    20. Harris NL
    21. Hartnett MJ
    22. Hastreiter M
    23. Hauck F
    24. He Y
    25. Jeske T
    26. Kearney H
    27. Kindle G
    28. Klein C
    29. Knoflach K
    30. Krause R
    31. Lagorce D
    32. McMurry JA
    33. Miller JA
    34. Munoz-Torres MC
    35. Peters RL
    36. Rapp CK
    37. Rath AM
    38. Rind SA
    39. Rosenberg AZ
    40. Segal MM
    41. Seidel MG
    42. Smedley D
    43. Talmy T
    44. Thomas Y
    45. Wiafe SA
    46. Xian J
    47. Yüksel Z
    48. Helbig I
    49. Mungall CJ
    50. Haendel MA
    51. Robinson PN

    (2021) The human phenotype ontology in 2021

    Nucleic Acids Research 49:D1207–D1217.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kolvenbach CM
    2. Dworschak GC
    3. Frese S
    4. Japp AS
    5. Schuster P
    6. Wenzlitschke N
    7. Yilmaz Ö
    8. Lopes FM
    9. Pryalukhin A
    10. Schierbaum L
    11. van der Zanden LFM
    12. Kause F
    13. Schneider R
    14. Taranta-Janusz K
    15. Szczepańska M
    16. Pawlaczyk K
    17. Newman WG
    18. Beaman GM
    19. Stuart HM
    20. Cervellione RM
    21. Feitz WFJ
    22. van Rooij I
    23. Schreuder MF
    24. Steffens M
    25. Weber S
    26. Merz WM
    27. Feldkötter M
    28. Hoppe B
    29. Thiele H
    30. Altmüller J
    31. Berg C
    32. Kristiansen G
    33. Ludwig M
    34. Reutter H
    35. Woolf AS
    36. Hildebrandt F
    37. Grote P
    38. Zaniew M
    39. Odermatt B
    40. Hilger AC

    (2019) Rare variants in BNC2 are implicated in autosomal-dominant congenital lower urinary-tract obstruction

    American Journal of Human Genetics 104:994–1006.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.03.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Krietenstein N
    2. Abraham S
    3. Venev SV
    4. Abdennur N
    5. Gibcus J
    6. Hsieh THS
    7. Parsi KM
    8. Yang L
    9. Maehr R
    10. Mirny LA
    11. Dekker J
    12. Rando OJ

    (2020) Ultrastructural details of mammalian chromosome architecture

    Molecular Cell 78:554–565.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2020.03.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Krishnan A
    2. de Souza A
    3. Konijeti R
    4. Baskin LS

    (2006) The anatomy and embryology of posterior urethral valves

    The Journal of Urology 175:1214–1220.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00642-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Kundaje A
    2. Meuleman W
    3. Ernst J
    4. Bilenky M
    5. Yen A
    6. Heravi-Moussavi A
    7. Kheradpour P
    8. Zhang Z
    9. Wang J
    10. Ziller MJ
    11. Amin V
    12. Whitaker JW
    13. Schultz MD
    14. Ward LD
    15. Sarkar A
    16. Quon G
    17. Sandstrom RS
    18. Eaton ML
    19. Wu YC
    20. Pfenning AR
    21. Wang X
    22. Claussnitzer M
    23. Liu Y
    24. Coarfa C
    25. Harris RA
    26. Shoresh N
    27. Epstein CB
    28. Gjoneska E
    29. Leung D
    30. Xie W
    31. Hawkins RD
    32. Lister R
    33. Hong C
    34. Gascard P
    35. Mungall AJ
    36. Moore R
    37. Chuah E
    38. Tam A
    39. Canfield TK
    40. Hansen RS
    41. Kaul R
    42. Sabo PJ
    43. Bansal MS
    44. Carles A
    45. Dixon JR
    46. Farh KH
    47. Feizi S
    48. Karlic R
    49. Kim AR
    50. Kulkarni A
    51. Li D
    52. Lowdon R
    53. Elliott G
    54. Mercer TR
    55. Neph SJ
    56. Onuchic V
    57. Polak P
    58. Rajagopal N
    59. Ray P
    60. Sallari RC
    61. Siebenthall KT
    62. Sinnott-Armstrong NA
    63. Stevens M
    64. Thurman RE
    65. Wu J
    66. Zhang B
    67. Zhou X
    68. Beaudet AE
    69. Boyer LA
    70. De Jager PL
    71. Farnham PJ
    72. Fisher SJ
    73. Haussler D
    74. Jones SJM
    75. Li W
    76. Marra MA
    77. McManus MT
    78. Sunyaev S
    79. Thomson JA
    80. Tlsty TD
    81. Tsai LH
    82. Wang W
    83. Waterland RA
    84. Zhang MQ
    85. Chadwick LH
    86. Bernstein BE
    87. Costello JF
    88. Ecker JR
    89. Hirst M
    90. Meissner A
    91. Milosavljevic A
    92. Ren B
    93. Stamatoyannopoulos JA
    94. Wang T
    95. Kellis M
    96. Roadmap Epigenomics Consortium

    (2015) Integrative analysis of 111 reference human epigenomes

    Nature 518:317–330.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14248

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Lakich D
    2. Kazazian HH
    3. Antonarakis SE
    4. Gitschier J

    (1993) Inversions disrupting the factor VIII gene are A common cause of severe haemophilia A

    Nature Genetics 5:236–241.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1193-236

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Lee S
    2. Emond MJ
    3. Bamshad MJ
    4. Barnes KC
    5. Rieder MJ
    6. Nickerson DA
    7. Christiani DC
    8. Wurfel MM
    9. Lin X
    10. NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project—ESP Lung Project Team

    (2012) Optimal unified approach for rare-variant association testing with application to small-sample case-control whole-exome sequencing studies

    American Journal of Human Genetics 91:224–237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Lei Y
    2. Kim SE
    3. Chen Z
    4. Cao X
    5. Zhu H
    6. Yang W
    7. Shaw GM
    8. Zheng Y
    9. Zhang T
    10. Wang HY
    11. Finnell RH

    (2019) Variants identified in PTK7 associated with neural tube defects

    Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine 7:e00584.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.584

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Li QY
    2. Newbury-Ecob RA
    3. Terrett JA
    4. Wilson DI
    5. Curtis AR
    6. Yi CH
    7. Gebuhr T
    8. Bullen PJ
    9. Robson SC
    10. Strachan T
    11. Bonnet D
    12. Lyonnet S
    13. Young ID
    14. Raeburn JA
    15. Buckler AJ
    16. Law DJ
    17. Brook JD

    (1997) Holt-oram syndrome is caused by mutations in TBX5, a member of the brachyury (T) gene family

    Nature Genetics 15:21–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0197-21

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Liberzon A
    2. Birger C
    3. Thorvaldsdóttir H
    4. Ghandi M
    5. Mesirov JP
    6. Tamayo P

    (2015) The molecular signatures database (msigdb) hallmark gene set collection

    Cell Systems 1:417–425.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2015.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. MacArthur J
    2. Bowler E
    3. Cerezo M
    4. Gil L
    5. Hall P
    6. Hastings E
    7. Junkins H
    8. McMahon A
    9. Milano A
    10. Morales J
    11. Pendlington ZM
    12. Welter D
    13. Burdett T
    14. Hindorff L
    15. Flicek P
    16. Cunningham F
    17. Parkinson H

    (2017) The new NHGRI-EBI catalog of published genome-wide association studies (GWAS catalog)

    Nucleic Acids Research 45:D896–D901.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1133

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. MacDonald JR
    2. Ziman R
    3. Yuen RKC
    4. Feuk L
    5. Scherer SW

    (2014) The database of genomic variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:D986–D992.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt958

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Manichaikul A
    2. Mychaleckyj JC
    3. Rich SS
    4. Daly K
    5. Sale M
    6. Chen WM

    (2010) Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies

    Bioinformatics 26:2867–2873.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq559

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. McLaren W
    2. Gil L
    3. Hunt SE
    4. Riat HS
    5. Ritchie GRS
    6. Thormann A
    7. Flicek P
    8. Cunningham F

    (2016) The ensembl variant effect predictor

    Genome Biology 17:122.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-0974-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. McMahon A
    2. Lewis E
    3. Buniello A
    4. Cerezo M
    5. Hall P
    6. Sollis E
    7. Parkinson H
    8. Hindorff LA
    9. Harris LW
    10. MacArthur JAL

    (2021) Sequencing-based genome-wide association studies reporting standards

    Cell Genomics 1:100005.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Moore JE
    2. Purcaro MJ
    3. Pratt HE
    4. Epstein CB
    5. Shoresh N
    6. Adrian J
    7. Kawli T
    8. Davis CA
    9. Dobin A
    10. Kaul R
    11. Halow J
    12. Van Nostrand EL
    13. Freese P
    14. Gorkin DU
    15. Shen Y
    16. He Y
    17. Mackiewicz M
    18. Pauli-Behn F
    19. Williams BA
    20. Mortazavi A
    21. Keller CA
    22. Zhang X-O
    23. Elhajjajy SI
    24. Huey J
    25. Dickel DE
    26. Snetkova V
    27. Wei X
    28. Wang X
    29. Rivera-Mulia JC
    30. Rozowsky J
    31. Zhang J
    32. Chhetri SB
    33. Zhang J
    34. Victorsen A
    35. White KP
    36. Visel A
    37. Yeo GW
    38. Burge CB
    39. Lécuyer E
    40. Gilbert DM
    41. Dekker J
    42. Rinn J
    43. Mendenhall EM
    44. Ecker JR
    45. Kellis M
    46. Klein RJ
    47. Noble WS
    48. Kundaje A
    49. Guigó R
    50. Farnham PJ
    51. Cherry JM
    52. Myers RM
    53. Ren B
    54. Graveley BR
    55. Gerstein MB
    56. Pennacchio LA
    57. Snyder MP
    58. Bernstein BE
    59. Wold B
    60. Hardison RC
    61. Gingeras TR
    62. Stamatoyannopoulos JA
    63. Weng Z
    64. ENCODE Project Consortium

    (2020) Expanded encyclopaedias of DNA elements in the human and mouse genomes

    Nature 583:699–710.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2493-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Moore CM
    2. Jacobson SA
    3. Fingerlin TE

    (2021) Power and sample size calculations for genetic association studies in the presence of genetic model misspecification

    Human Heredity 84:256–271.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000508558

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Morini F
    2. Ilari M
    3. Casati A
    4. Piserà A
    5. Oriolo L
    6. Cozzi DA

    (2002) Posterior urethral valves and mirror image anomalies in monozygotic twins

    American Journal of Medical Genetics 111:210–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10563

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Mossie K
    2. Jallal B
    3. Alves F
    4. Sures I
    5. Plowman GD
    6. Ullrich A

    (1995)

    Colon carcinoma kinase-4 defines a new subclass of the receptor tyrosine kinase family

    Oncogene 11:2179–2184.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Namjou B
    2. Ni Y
    3. Harley ITW
    4. Chepelev I
    5. Cobb B
    6. Kottyan LC
    7. Gaffney PM
    8. Guthridge JM
    9. Kaufman K
    10. Harley JB
    11. Montgomery CG

    (2021) The effect of inversion at 8p23 on BLK association with lupus in caucasian population

    PLOS ONE 9:e115614.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115614

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Nicolaou N
    2. Renkema KY
    3. Bongers E
    4. Giles RH
    5. Knoers N

    (2015) Genetic, environmental, and epigenetic factors involved in CAKUT

    Nature Reviews. Nephrology 11:720–731.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneph.2015.140

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Niemi MEK
    2. Martin HC
    3. Rice DL
    4. Gallone G
    5. Gordon S
    6. Kelemen M
    7. McAloney K
    8. McRae J
    9. Radford EJ
    10. Yu S
    11. Gecz J
    12. Martin NG
    13. Wright CF
    14. Fitzpatrick DR
    15. Firth HV
    16. Hurles ME
    17. Barrett JC

    (2018) Common genetic variants contribute to risk of rare severe neurodevelopmental disorders

    Nature 562:268–271.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0566-4

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Peterson RE
    2. Kuchenbaecker K
    3. Walters RK
    4. Chen CY
    5. Popejoy AB
    6. Periyasamy S
    7. Lam M
    8. Iyegbe C
    9. Strawbridge RJ
    10. Brick L
    11. Carey CE
    12. Martin AR
    13. Meyers JL
    14. Su J
    15. Chen J
    16. Edwards AC
    17. Kalungi A
    18. Koen N
    19. Majara L
    20. Schwarz E
    21. Smoller JW
    22. Stahl EA
    23. Sullivan PF
    24. Vassos E
    25. Mowry B
    26. Prieto ML
    27. Cuellar-Barboza A
    28. Bigdeli TB
    29. Edenberg HJ
    30. Huang H
    31. Duncan LE

    (2019) Genome-wide association studies in ancestrally diverse populations: opportunities, methods, pitfalls, and recommendations

    Cell 179:589–603.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Pruim RJ
    2. Welch RP
    3. Sanna S
    4. Teslovich TM
    5. Chines PS
    6. Gliedt TP
    7. Boehnke M
    8. Abecasis GR
    9. Willer CJ

    (2010) LocusZoom: regional visualization of genome-wide association scan results

    Bioinformatics 26:2336–2337.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq419

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Puig M
    2. Casillas S
    3. Villatoro S
    4. Cáceres M

    (2015) Human inversions and their functional consequences

    Briefings in Functional Genomics 14:369–379.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elv020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Purcell S
    2. Neale B
    3. Todd-Brown K
    4. Thomas L
    5. Ferreira MAR
    6. Bender D
    7. Maller J
    8. Sklar P
    9. de Bakker PIW
    10. Daly MJ
    11. Sham PC

    (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses

    American Journal of Human Genetics 81:559–575.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/519795

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Quinlan AR
    2. Hall IM

    (2010) BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features

    Bioinformatics 26:841–842.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Rentzsch P
    2. Witten D
    3. Cooper GM
    4. Shendure J
    5. Kircher M

    (2019) CADD: predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:D886–D894.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Richards S
    2. Aziz N
    3. Bale S
    4. Bick D
    5. Das S
    6. Gastier-Foster J
    7. Grody WW
    8. Hegde M
    9. Lyon E
    10. Spector E
    11. Voelkerding K
    12. Rehm HL
    13. Committee A

    (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the american college of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular pathology

    Genetics in Medicine 17:405–424.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Roller E
    2. Ivakhno S
    3. Lee S
    4. Royce T
    5. Tanner S

    (2016) Canvas: versatile and scalable detection of copy number variants

    Bioinformatics 32:2375–2377.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw163

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Salm MPA
    2. Horswell SD
    3. Hutchison CE
    4. Speedy HE
    5. Yang X
    6. Liang L
    7. Schadt EE
    8. Cookson WO
    9. Wierzbicki AS
    10. Naoumova RP
    11. Shoulders CC

    (2012) The origin, global distribution, and functional impact of the human 8p23 inversion polymorphism

    Genome Research 22:1144–1153.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.126037.111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Sanna-Cherchi S
    2. Ravani P
    3. Corbani V
    4. Parodi S
    5. Haupt R
    6. Piaggio G
    7. Innocenti MLD
    8. Somenzi D
    9. Trivelli A
    10. Caridi G
    11. Izzi C
    12. Scolari F
    13. Mattioli G
    14. Allegri L
    15. Ghiggeri GM

    (2009) Renal outcome in patients with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract

    Kidney International 76:528–533.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2009.220

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Schierbaum LM
    2. Schneider S
    3. Herms S
    4. Sivalingam S
    5. Fabian J
    6. Reutter H
    7. Weber S
    8. Merz WM
    9. Tkaczyk M
    10. Miklaszewska M
    11. Sikora P
    12. Szmigielska A
    13. Krzemien G
    14. Zachwieja K
    15. Szczepanska M
    16. Taranta-Janusz K
    17. Kroll P
    18. Polok M
    19. Zaniew M
    20. Hilger AC

    (2021) Genome-wide survey for microdeletions or -duplications in 155 patients with lower urinary tract obstructions (LUTO)

    Genes 12:1449.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12091449

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Schmitt AD
    2. Hu M
    3. Jung I
    4. Xu Z
    5. Qiu Y
    6. Tan CL
    7. Li Y
    8. Lin S
    9. Lin Y
    10. Barr CL
    11. Ren B

    (2016) A compendium of chromatin contact maps reveals spatially active regions in the human genome

    Cell Reports 17:2042–2059.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.10.061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Schreuder MF
    2. van der Horst HJR
    3. Bökenkamp A
    4. Beckers GMA
    5. van Wijk JAE

    (2008) Posterior urethral valves in three siblings: a case report and review of the literature

    Birth Defects Research Part A 82:232–235.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.20439

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Siepel A
    2. Bejerano G
    3. Pedersen JS
    4. Hinrichs AS
    5. Hou M
    6. Rosenbloom K
    7. Clawson H
    8. Spieth J
    9. Hillier LW
    10. Richards S
    11. Weinstock GM
    12. Wilson RK
    13. Gibbs RA
    14. Kent WJ
    15. Miller W
    16. Haussler D

    (2005) Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes

    Genome Research 15:1034–1050.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.3715005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Smedley D
    2. Smith KR
    3. Martin A
    4. Thomas EA
    5. McDonagh EM
    6. Cipriani V
    7. Ellingford JM
    8. Arno G
    9. Tucci A
    10. Vandrovcova J
    11. Chan G
    12. Williams HJ
    13. Ratnaike T
    14. Wei W
    15. Stirrups K
    16. Ibanez K
    17. Moutsianas L
    18. Wielscher M
    19. Need A
    20. Barnes MR
    21. Vestito L
    22. Buchanan J
    23. Wordsworth S
    24. Ashford S
    25. Rehmström K
    26. Li E
    27. Fuller G
    28. Twiss P
    29. Spasic-Boskovic O
    30. Halsall S
    31. Floto RA
    32. Poole K
    33. Wagner A
    34. Mehta SG
    35. Gurnell M
    36. Burrows N
    37. James R
    38. Penkett C
    39. Dewhurst E
    40. Gräf S
    41. Mapeta R
    42. Kasanicki M
    43. Haworth A
    44. Savage H
    45. Babcock M
    46. Reese MG
    47. Bale M
    48. Baple E
    49. Boustred C
    50. Brittain H
    51. de Burca A
    52. Bleda M
    53. Devereau A
    54. Halai D
    55. Haraldsdottir E
    56. Hyder Z
    57. Kasperaviciute D
    58. Patch C
    59. Polychronopoulos D
    60. Matchan A
    61. Sultana R
    62. Ryten M
    63. Tavares ALT
    64. Tregidgo C
    65. Turnbull C
    66. Welland M
    67. Wood S
    68. Snow C
    69. Williams E
    70. Leigh S
    71. Foulger RE
    72. Daugherty LC
    73. Niblock O
    74. Leong IUS
    75. Wright CF
    76. Davies J
    77. Crichton C
    78. Welch J
    79. Woods K
    80. Abulhoul L
    81. Aurora P
    82. Bockenhauer D
    83. Broomfield A
    84. Cleary MA
    85. Lam T
    86. Dattani M
    87. Footitt E
    88. Ganesan V
    89. Grunewald S
    90. Compeyrot-Lacassagne S
    91. Muntoni F
    92. Pilkington C
    93. Quinlivan R
    94. Thapar N
    95. Wallis C
    96. Wedderburn LR
    97. Worth A
    98. Bueser T
    99. Compton C
    100. Deshpande C
    101. Fassihi H
    102. Haque E
    103. Izatt L
    104. Josifova D
    105. Mohammed S
    106. Robert L
    107. Rose S
    108. Ruddy D
    109. Sarkany R
    110. Say G
    111. Shaw AC
    112. Wolejko A
    113. Habib B
    114. Burns G
    115. Hunter S
    116. Grocock RJ
    117. Humphray SJ
    118. Robinson PN
    119. Haendel M
    120. Simpson MA
    121. Banka S
    122. Clayton-Smith J
    123. Douzgou S
    124. Hall G
    125. Thomas HB
    126. O’Keefe RT
    127. Michaelides M
    128. Moore AT
    129. Malka S
    130. Pontikos N
    131. Browning AC
    132. Straub V
    133. Gorman GS
    134. Horvath R
    135. Quinton R
    136. Schaefer AM
    137. Yu-Wai-Man P
    138. Turnbull DM
    139. McFarland R
    140. Taylor RW
    141. O’Connor E
    142. Yip J
    143. Newland K
    144. Morris HR
    145. Polke J
    146. Wood NW
    147. Campbell C
    148. Camps C
    149. Gibson K
    150. Koelling N
    151. Lester T
    152. Németh AH
    153. Palles C
    154. Patel S
    155. Roy NBA
    156. Sen A
    157. Taylor J
    158. Cacheiro P
    159. Jacobsen JO
    160. Seaby EG
    161. Davison V
    162. Chitty L
    163. Douglas A
    164. Naresh K
    165. McMullan D
    166. Ellard S
    167. Temple IK
    168. Mumford AD
    169. Wilson G
    170. Beales P
    171. Bitner-Glindzicz M
    172. Black G
    173. Bradley JR
    174. Brennan P
    175. Burn J
    176. Chinnery PF
    177. Elliott P
    178. Flinter F
    179. Houlden H
    180. Irving M
    181. Newman W
    182. Rahman S
    183. Sayer JA
    184. Taylor JC
    185. Webster AR
    186. Wilkie AOM
    187. Ouwehand WH
    188. Raymond FL
    189. Chisholm J
    190. Hill S
    191. Bentley D
    192. Scott RH
    193. Fowler T
    194. Rendon A
    195. Caulfield M
    196. 100,000 Genomes Project Pilot Investigators

    (2021) 100,000 genomes pilot on rare-disease diagnosis in health care - preliminary report

    The New England Journal of Medicine 385:1868–1880.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035790

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Stuart HM
    2. Roberts NA
    3. Burgu B
    4. Daly SB
    5. Urquhart JE
    6. Bhaskar S
    7. Dickerson JE
    8. Mermerkaya M
    9. Silay MS
    10. Lewis MA
    11. Olondriz MBO
    12. Gener B
    13. Beetz C
    14. Varga RE
    15. Gülpınar Ö
    16. Süer E
    17. Soygür T
    18. Özçakar ZB
    19. Yalçınkaya F
    20. Kavaz A
    21. Bulum B
    22. Gücük A
    23. Yue WW
    24. Erdogan F
    25. Berry A
    26. Hanley NA
    27. McKenzie EA
    28. Hilton EN
    29. Woolf AS
    30. Newman WG

    (2008) LRIG2 mutations cause urofacial syndrome

    The American Journal of Human Genetics 92:259–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.12.002

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Su Z
    2. Gay LJ
    3. Strange A
    4. Palles C
    5. Band G
    6. Whiteman DC
    7. Lescai F
    8. Langford C
    9. Nanji M
    10. Edkins S
    11. van der Winkel A
    12. Levine D
    13. Sasieni P
    14. Bellenguez C
    15. Howarth K
    16. Freeman C
    17. Trudgill N
    18. Tucker AT
    19. Pirinen M
    20. Peppelenbosch MP
    21. van der Laan LJW
    22. Kuipers EJ
    23. Drenth JPH
    24. Peters WH
    25. Reynolds JV
    26. Kelleher DP
    27. McManus R
    28. Grabsch H
    29. Prenen H
    30. Bisschops R
    31. Krishnadath K
    32. Siersema PD
    33. van Baal J
    34. Middleton M
    35. Petty R
    36. Gillies R
    37. Burch N
    38. Bhandari P
    39. Paterson S
    40. Edwards C
    41. Penman I
    42. Vaidya K
    43. Ang Y
    44. Murray I
    45. Patel P
    46. Ye W
    47. Mullins P
    48. Wu AH
    49. Bird NC
    50. Dallal H
    51. Shaheen NJ
    52. Murray LJ
    53. Koss K
    54. Bernstein L
    55. Romero Y
    56. Hardie LJ
    57. Zhang R
    58. Winter H
    59. Corley DA
    60. Panter S
    61. Risch HA
    62. Reid BJ
    63. Sargeant I
    64. Gammon MD
    65. Smart H
    66. Dhar A
    67. McMurtry H
    68. Ali H
    69. Liu G
    70. Casson AG
    71. Chow WH
    72. Rutter M
    73. Tawil A
    74. Morris D
    75. Nwokolo C
    76. Isaacs P
    77. Rodgers C
    78. Ragunath K
    79. MacDonald C
    80. Haigh C
    81. Monk D
    82. Davies G
    83. Wajed S
    84. Johnston D
    85. Gibbons M
    86. Cullen S
    87. Church N
    88. Langley R
    89. Griffin M
    90. Alderson D
    91. Deloukas P
    92. Hunt SE
    93. Gray E
    94. Dronov S
    95. Potter SC
    96. Tashakkori-Ghanbaria A
    97. Anderson M
    98. Brooks C
    99. Blackwell JM
    100. Bramon E
    101. Brown MA
    102. Casas JP
    103. Corvin A
    104. Duncanson A
    105. Markus HS
    106. Mathew CG
    107. Palmer CNA
    108. Plomin R
    109. Rautanen A
    110. Sawcer SJ
    111. Trembath RC
    112. Viswanathan AC
    113. Wood N
    114. Trynka G
    115. Wijmenga C
    116. Cazier JB
    117. Atherfold P
    118. Nicholson AM
    119. Gellatly NL
    120. Glancy D
    121. Cooper SC
    122. Cunningham D
    123. Lind T
    124. Hapeshi J
    125. Ferry D
    126. Rathbone B
    127. Brown J
    128. Love S
    129. Attwood S
    130. MacGregor S
    131. Watson P
    132. Sanders S
    133. Ek W
    134. Harrison RF
    135. Moayyedi P
    136. de Caestecker J
    137. Barr H
    138. Stupka E
    139. Vaughan TL
    140. Peltonen L
    141. Spencer CCA
    142. Tomlinson I
    143. Donnelly P
    144. Jankowski JAZ
    145. Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Genetics Consortium
    146. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2

    (2012) Common variants at the MHC locus and at chromosome 16q24.1 predispose to barrett’s esophagus

    Nature Genetics 44:1131–1136.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2408

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Sun M
    2. Tong P
    3. Kong W
    4. Dong B
    5. Huang Y
    6. Park IY
    7. Zhou L
    8. Liu XD
    9. Ding Z
    10. Zhang X
    11. Bai S
    12. German P
    13. Powell R
    14. Wang Q
    15. Tong X
    16. Tannir NM
    17. Matin SF
    18. Rathmell WK
    19. Fuller GN
    20. McCutcheon IE
    21. Walker CL
    22. Wang J
    23. Jonasch E

    (2017) HNF1B loss exacerbates the development of chromophobe renal cell carcinomas

    Cancer Research 77:5313–5326.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0986

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Taliun D
    2. Harris DN
    3. Kessler MD
    4. Carlson J
    5. Szpiech ZA
    6. Torres R
    7. Taliun SAG
    8. Corvelo A
    9. Gogarten SM
    10. Kang HM
    11. Pitsillides AN
    12. LeFaive J
    13. Lee SB
    14. Tian X
    15. Browning BL
    16. Das S
    17. Emde AK
    18. Clarke WE
    19. Loesch DP
    20. Shetty AC
    21. Blackwell TW
    22. Smith AV
    23. Wong Q
    24. Liu X
    25. Conomos MP
    26. Bobo DM
    27. Aguet F
    28. Albert C
    29. Alonso A
    30. Ardlie KG
    31. Arking DE
    32. Aslibekyan S
    33. Auer PL
    34. Barnard J
    35. Barr RG
    36. Barwick L
    37. Becker LC
    38. Beer RL
    39. Benjamin EJ
    40. Bielak LF
    41. Blangero J
    42. Boehnke M
    43. Bowden DW
    44. Brody JA
    45. Burchard EG
    46. Cade BE
    47. Casella JF
    48. Chalazan B
    49. Chasman DI
    50. Chen YDI
    51. Cho MH
    52. Choi SH
    53. Chung MK
    54. Clish CB
    55. Correa A
    56. Curran JE
    57. Custer B
    58. Darbar D
    59. Daya M
    60. de Andrade M
    61. DeMeo DL
    62. Dutcher SK
    63. Ellinor PT
    64. Emery LS
    65. Eng C
    66. Fatkin D
    67. Fingerlin T
    68. Forer L
    69. Fornage M
    70. Franceschini N
    71. Fuchsberger C
    72. Fullerton SM
    73. Germer S
    74. Gladwin MT
    75. Gottlieb DJ
    76. Guo X
    77. Hall ME
    78. He J
    79. Heard-Costa NL
    80. Heckbert SR
    81. Irvin MR
    82. Johnsen JM
    83. Johnson AD
    84. Kaplan R
    85. Kardia SLR
    86. Kelly T
    87. Kelly S
    88. Kenny EE
    89. Kiel DP
    90. Klemmer R
    91. Konkle BA
    92. Kooperberg C
    93. Köttgen A
    94. Lange LA
    95. Lasky-Su J
    96. Levy D
    97. Lin X
    98. Lin KH
    99. Liu C
    100. Loos RJF
    101. Garman L
    102. Gerszten R
    103. Lubitz SA
    104. Lunetta KL
    105. Mak ACY
    106. Manichaikul A
    107. Manning AK
    108. Mathias RA
    109. McManus DD
    110. McGarvey ST
    111. Meigs JB
    112. Meyers DA
    113. Mikulla JL
    114. Minear MA
    115. Mitchell BD
    116. Mohanty S
    117. Montasser ME
    118. Montgomery C
    119. Morrison AC
    120. Murabito JM
    121. Natale A
    122. Natarajan P
    123. Nelson SC
    124. North KE
    125. O’Connell JR
    126. Palmer ND
    127. Pankratz N
    128. Peloso GM
    129. Peyser PA
    130. Pleiness J
    131. Post WS
    132. Psaty BM
    133. Rao DC
    134. Redline S
    135. Reiner AP
    136. Roden D
    137. Rotter JI
    138. Ruczinski I
    139. Sarnowski C
    140. Schoenherr S
    141. Schwartz DA
    142. Seo JS
    143. Seshadri S
    144. Sheehan VA
    145. Sheu WH
    146. Shoemaker MB
    147. Smith NL
    148. Smith JA
    149. Sotoodehnia N
    150. Stilp AM
    151. Tang W
    152. Taylor KD
    153. Telen M
    154. Thornton TA
    155. Tracy RP
    156. Van Den Berg DJ
    157. Vasan RS
    158. Viaud-Martinez KA
    159. Vrieze S
    160. Weeks DE
    161. Weir BS
    162. Weiss ST
    163. Weng LC
    164. Willer CJ
    165. Zhang Y
    166. Zhao X
    167. Arnett DK
    168. Ashley-Koch AE
    169. Barnes KC
    170. Boerwinkle E
    171. Gabriel S
    172. Gibbs R
    173. Rice KM
    174. Rich SS
    175. Silverman EK
    176. Qasba P
    177. Gan W
    178. Papanicolaou GJ
    179. Nickerson DA
    180. Browning SR
    181. Zody MC
    182. Zöllner S
    183. Wilson JG
    184. Cupples LA
    185. Laurie CC
    186. Jaquish CE
    187. Hernandez RD
    188. O’Connor TD
    189. Abecasis GR
    190. NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine TOPMed Consortium

    (2021) Sequencing of 53,831 diverse genomes from the NHLBI topmed program

    Nature 590:290–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03205-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Tan A
    2. Abecasis GR
    3. Kang HM

    (2015) Unified representation of genetic variants

    Bioinformatics 31:2202–2204.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv112

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Thakkar D
    2. Deshpande AV
    3. Kennedy SE

    (2015) Epidemiology and demography of recently diagnosed cases of posterior urethral valves

    Pediatric Research 76:560–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/pr.2014.134

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Tong CC
    2. Duffy KA
    3. Chu DI
    4. Weiss DA
    5. Srinivasan AK
    6. Canning DA
    7. Kalish JM

    (2015) Urological findings in beckwith-wiedemann syndrome with chromosomal duplications of 11p15.5: evaluation and management

    Urology 100:224–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.08.037

    • Google Scholar
87. Preprint

    1. Turner SD

    (2015) qqman: an R package for visualizing GWAS results using Q-Q and manhattan plots

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/005165

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Verbitsky M
    2. Westland R
    3. Perez A
    4. Kiryluk K
    5. Liu Q
    6. Krithivasan P
    7. Mitrotti A
    8. Fasel DA
    9. Batourina E
    10. Sampson MG
    11. Bodria M
    12. Werth M
    13. Kao C
    14. Martino J
    15. Capone VP
    16. Vivante A
    17. Shril S
    18. Kil BH
    19. Marasà M
    20. Zhang JY
    21. Na YJ
    22. Lim TY
    23. Ahram D
    24. Weng PL
    25. Heinzen EL
    26. Carrea A
    27. Piaggio G
    28. Gesualdo L
    29. Manca V
    30. Masnata G
    31. Gigante M
    32. Cusi D
    33. Izzi C
    34. Scolari F
    35. van Wijk JAE
    36. Saraga M
    37. Santoro D
    38. Conti G
    39. Zamboli P
    40. White H
    41. Drozdz D
    42. Zachwieja K
    43. Miklaszewska M
    44. Tkaczyk M
    45. Tomczyk D
    46. Krakowska A
    47. Sikora P
    48. Jarmoliński T
    49. Borszewska-Kornacka MK
    50. Pawluch R
    51. Szczepanska M
    52. Adamczyk P
    53. Mizerska-Wasiak M
    54. Krzemien G
    55. Szmigielska A
    56. Zaniew M
    57. Dobson MG
    58. Darlow JM
    59. Puri P
    60. Barton DE
    61. Furth SL
    62. Warady BA
    63. Gucev Z
    64. Lozanovski VJ
    65. Tasic V
    66. Pisani I
    67. Allegri L
    68. Rodas LM
    69. Campistol JM
    70. Jeanpierre C
    71. Alam S
    72. Casale P
    73. Wong CS
    74. Lin F
    75. Miranda DM
    76. Oliveira EA
    77. Simões-E-Silva AC
    78. Barasch JM
    79. Levy B
    80. Wu N
    81. Hildebrandt F
    82. Ghiggeri GM
    83. Latos-Bielenska A
    84. Materna-Kiryluk A
    85. Zhang F
    86. Hakonarson H
    87. Papaioannou VE
    88. Mendelsohn CL
    89. Gharavi AG
    90. Sanna-Cherchi S

    (2019) The copy number variation landscape of congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract

    Nature Genetics 51:117–127.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0281-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Wade EM
    2. Jenkins ZA
    3. Morgan T
    4. Gimenez G
    5. Gibson H
    6. Peng H
    7. Sanchez Russo R
    8. Skraban CM
    9. Bedoukian E
    10. Robertson SP

    (2021) Exon skip-inducing variants in FLNA in an attenuated form of frontometaphyseal dysplasia

    American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A 185:3675–3682.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.62424

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Wang K
    2. Li M
    3. Hakonarson H

    (2010) ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data

    Nucleic Acids Research 38:e164.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq603

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Wang M
    2. De Marco P
    3. Merello E
    4. Drapeau P
    5. Capra V
    6. Kibar Z

    (2015) Role of the planar cell polarity gene protein tyrosine kinase 7 in neural tube defects in humans

    Birth Defects Research Part A 103:1021–1027.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.23422

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Watanabe K
    2. Taskesen E
    3. van Bochoven A
    4. Posthuma D

    (2017) Functional mapping and annotation of genetic associations with FUMA

    Nature Communications 8:1826.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01261-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Webb A
    2. Miller B
    3. Bonasera S
    4. Boxer A
    5. Karydas A
    6. Wilhelmsen KC

    (2008) Role of the tau gene region chromosome inversion in progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal degeneration, and related disorders

    Archives of Neurology 65:1473–1478.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.65.11.1473

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Weber S
    2. Mir S
    3. Schlingmann KP
    4. Nürnberg G
    5. Becker C
    6. Kara PE
    7. Ozkayin N
    8. Konrad M
    9. Nürnberg P
    10. Schaefer F

    (2005) Gene locus ambiguity in posterior urethral valves/prune-belly syndrome

    Pediatric Nephrology 20:1036–1042.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-005-1977-7

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Weber S
    2. Thiele H
    3. Mir S
    4. Toliat MR
    5. Sozeri B
    6. Reutter H
    7. Draaken M
    8. Ludwig M
    9. Altmüller J
    10. Frommolt P
    11. Stuart HM
    12. Ranjzad P
    13. Hanley NA
    14. Jennings R
    15. Newman WG
    16. Wilcox DT
    17. Thiel U
    18. Schlingmann KP
    19. Beetz R
    20. Hoyer PF
    21. Konrad M
    22. Schaefer F
    23. Nürnberg P
    24. Woolf AS

    (2011) Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3 mutation causes urinary bladder disease and a prune-belly-like syndrome

    American Journal of Human Genetics 89:668–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.10.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Wu C-HW
    2. Mann N
    3. Nakayama M
    4. Connaughton DM
    5. Dai R
    6. Kolvenbach CM
    7. Kause F
    8. Ottlewski I
    9. Wang C
    10. Klämbt V
    11. Seltzsam S
    12. Lai EW
    13. Selvin A
    14. Senguttuva P
    15. Bodamer O
    16. Stein DR
    17. El Desoky S
    18. Kari JA
    19. Tasic V
    20. Bauer SB
    21. Shril S
    22. Hildebrandt F

    (2020) Phenotype expansion of heterozygous FOXC1 pathogenic variants toward involvement of congenital anomalies of the kidneys and urinary tract (CAKUT)

    Genetics in Medicine 22:1673–1681.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0844-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Xu B
    2. Washington AM
    3. Domeniconi RF
    4. Ferreira Souza AC
    5. Lu X
    6. Sutherland A
    7. Hinton BT

    (2016) Protein tyrosine kinase 7 is essential for tubular morphogenesis of the wolffian duct

    Developmental Biology 412:219–233.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.02.029

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Xu B
    2. Santos SAA
    3. Hinton BT

    (2018) Protein tyrosine kinase 7 regulates extracellular matrix integrity and mesenchymal intracellular RAC1 and myosin II activities during wolffian duct morphogenesis

    Developmental Biology 438:33–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.03.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Zhou W
    2. Nielsen JB
    3. Fritsche LG
    4. Dey R
    5. Gabrielsen ME
    6. Wolford BN
    7. LeFaive J
    8. VandeHaar P
    9. Gagliano SA
    10. Gifford A
    11. Bastarache LA
    12. Wei WQ
    13. Denny JC
    14. Lin M
    15. Hveem K
    16. Kang HM
    17. Abecasis GR
    18. Willer CJ
    19. Lee S

    (2016a) Efficiently controlling for case-control imbalance and sample relatedness in large-scale genetic association studies

    Nature Genetics 50:1335–1341.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0184-y

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Zhou W
     2. Zhao Z
     3. Nielsen JB
     4. Fritsche LG
     5. LeFaive J
     6. Gagliano Taliun SA
     7. Bi W
     8. Gabrielsen ME
     9. Daly MJ
     10. Neale BM
     11. Hveem K
     12. Abecasis GR
     13. Willer CJ
     14. Lee S

     (2016b) Scalable generalized linear mixed model for region-based association tests in large biobanks and cohorts

     Nature Genetics 52:634–639.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0621-6

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Zhou B
     2. Ho SS
     3. Zhang X
     4. Pattni R
     5. Haraksingh RR
     6. Urban AE

     (2016c) Whole-genome sequencing analysis of CNV using low-coverage and paired-end strategies is efficient and outperforms array-based CNV analysis

     Journal of Medical Genetics 55:735–743.

     https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105272

     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Melanie MY Chan

   Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1968-1734

2. Omid Sadeghi-Alavijeh

   Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Filipa M Lopes

   Division of Cell Matrix Biology & Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Validation, Investigation, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Alina C Hilger

   1. Children's Hospital, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
   2. Institute of Human Genetics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

   Contribution

   Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Horia C Stanescu

   Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Catalin D Voinescu

   Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3636-8689

7. Glenda M Beaman

   1. Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
   2. Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. William G Newman

   1. Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
   2. Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Marcin Zaniew

   Department of Pediatrics, University of Zielona Góra, Zielona Gora, Poland

   Contribution

   Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Stefanie Weber

    Department of Pediatric Nephrology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Contribution

    Validation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Yee Mang Ho

    Division of Cell Matrix Biology & Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. John O Connolly

    1. Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Department of Adolescent Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Resources, Project administration

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Dan Wood

    Department of Adolescent Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Resources, Project administration

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Carlo Maj

    1. Center for Human Genetics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
    2. Institute for Genomic Statistics and Bioinformatics, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Contribution

    Data curation, Formal analysis

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Alexander Stuckey

    Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Software, Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Athanasios Kousathanas

    Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Software, Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Genomics England Research Consortium

    Contribution

    Data curation, Resources

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    1. JC Ambrose
    2. P Arumugam
    3. R Bevers
    4. M Bleda
    5. F Boardman-Pretty
    6. CR Boustred
    7. H Brittain
    8. MA Brown
    9. MJ Caulfield
    10. GC Chan
    11. A Giess
    12. JN Griffin
    13. A Hamblin
    14. S Henderson
    15. TJP Hubbard
    16. R Jackson
    17. LJ Jones
    18. D Kasperaviciute
    19. M Kayikci
    20. A Kousathanas
    21. L Lahnstein
    22. A Lakey
    23. SEA Leigh
    24. IUS Leong
    25. FJ Lopez
    26. F Maleady-Crowe
    27. M McEntagart
    28. F Minneci
    29. J Mitchell
    30. L Moutsianas
    31. M Mueller
    32. N Murugaesu
    33. AC Need
    34. P O'Donovan
    35. CA Odhams
    36. C Patch
    37. D Perez-Gil
    38. MB Pereira
    39. J Pullinger
    40. T Rahim
    41. A Rendon
    42. T Rogers
    43. K Savage
    44. K Sawant
    45. RH Scott
    46. A Siddiq
    47. A Sieghart
    48. SC Smith
    49. A Sosinsky
    50. A Stuckey
    51. M Tanguy
    52. AL Taylor Tavares
    53. ERA Thomas
    54. SR Thompson
    55. A Tucci
    56. MJ Welland
    57. E Williams
    58. K Witkowska
    59. SM Wood
    60. M Zarowiecki

18. Robert Kleta

    1. Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Nephrology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Supervision, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

19. Adrian S Woolf

    1. Division of Cell Matrix Biology & Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    2. Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Supervision, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5541-1358

20. Detlef Bockenhauer

    1. Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Nephrology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

21. Adam P Levine

    1. Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    2. Research Department of Pathology, University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

22. Daniel P Gale

    Department of Renal Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration

    For correspondence

    d.gale@ucl.ac.uk

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9170-1579

• 1,201

  views

• 232

  downloads

• 9

  citations

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