DNA methylation differences in monozygotic twins with Van der Woude syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Van der Woude syndrome (VWS) is an autosomal dominant disorder responsible for 2% of all syndromic orofacial clefts (OFCs), with IRF6 being the primary causal gene (70%). Cases may present with lip pits and either cleft lip, cleft lip with cleft palate, or cleft palate, with marked phenotypic discordance even among individuals carrying the same mutation. This suggests that genetic or epigenetic modifiers may play additional roles in the syndrome's etiology and variability in expression. We report the first DNA methylation profiling of two pairs of monozygotic twins with VWS. Our goal is to explore epigenetic contributions to VWS etiology and variable phenotypic expressivity by comparing DNAm profiles in both twin pairs. While the mutations that cause VWS in these twins are known, the additional mechanism behind their phenotypic risk and variability in expression remains unclear. Methods We generated whole genome DNAm data for both twin pairs. Differentially methylated positions (DMPs) were selected based on: (1) a coefficient of variation in DNAm levels in unaffected individuals <20%, and (2) intra-twin pair absolute difference in DNAm levels >5% (Δ β > |0.05|). We then divided the DMPs into two subgroups for each twin pair for further analysis: (1) higher methylation levels in twin A (Twin A > Twin B); and (2) higher methylation levels in twin B (Twin B >Twin A). Results and Discussion Gene ontology analysis revealed a list of enriched genes that showed significant differential DNAm, including clef-associated genes. Among the cleft-associated genes, TP63 was the most significant hit (p = 7.82E-12). Both twin pairs presented differential DNAm levels in CpG sites in/near TP63 (Twin 1A > Twin 1B and Twin 2A < Twin 2B). The genes TP63 and IRF6 function in a biological regulatory loop to coordinate epithelial proliferation and differentiation in a process that is critical for palatal fusion. The effects of the causal mutations in IRF6 can be further impacted by epigenetic dysregulation of IRF6 itself or genes in its pathway. Our data show evidence that changes in DNAm are a plausible mechanism that can lead to markedly distinct phenotypes, even among individuals carrying the same mutation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".