ArticleGenesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000)2019
Using human sequencing to guide craniofacial research.
Article in Genesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-derived AMOTL1 mutations lead to defective cell migration and tissue development.Bioscience reports · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of genome sequencing in autism: illustrative examples from a genomic research study.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- A mutational hotspot in AMOTL1 defines a new syndrome of orofacial clefting, cardiac anomalies, and tall stature.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2023Article
- Bi-allelic CAMSAP1 variants cause a clinically recognizable neuronal migration disorder.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Embracing human genetics: a primer for developmental biologists.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A recent convergence of technological innovations has re-energized the ability to apply genetics to research in human craniofacial development. Next-generation exome and whole genome sequencing have significantly dropped in price, making it relatively trivial to sequence and analyze patients and families with congenital craniofacial anomalies. A concurrent revolution in genome editing with the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system enables the rapid generation of animal models, including mouse, which can precisely recapitulate human variants. Here, we summarize the choices currently available to the research community. We illustrate this approach with the study of a family with a novel craniofacial syndrome with dominant inheritance pattern. The genomic analysis suggested a causal variant in AMOTL1 which we modeled in mice. We also made a novel deletion allele of Amotl1. Our results indicate that Amotl1 is not required in the mouse for survival to weaning. Mice carrying the variant identified in the human sequencing studies, however, do not survive to weaning in normal ratios. The cause of death is not understood for these mice complicating our conclusions about the pathogenicity in the index patient. Thus, we highlight some of the powerful opportunities and confounding factors confronting current craniofacial genetic research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.