Next Article in Journal
Transcriptional Trajectories in Mouse Limb Buds Reveal the Transition from Anterior-Posterior to Proximal-Distal Patterning at Early Limb Bud Stage
Next Article in Special Issue
The Skull’s Girder: A Brief Review of the Cranial Base
Previous Article in Journal
Perspective: Controlling Epidermal Terminal Differentiation with Transcriptional Bursting and RNA Bodies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genetics Underlying the Interactions between Neural Crest Cells and Eye Development
Review

Phenotypes, Developmental Basis, and Genetics of Pierre Robin Complex

1
Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
2
Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Dev. Biol. 2020, 8(4), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/jdb8040030
Received: 1 November 2020 / Revised: 20 November 2020 / Accepted: 30 November 2020 / Published: 5 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology)

Abstract

The phenotype currently accepted as Pierre Robin syndrome/sequence/anomalad/complex (PR) is characterized by mandibular dysmorphology, glossoptosis, respiratory obstruction, and in some cases, cleft palate. A causative sequence of developmental events is hypothesized for PR, but few clear causal relationships between discovered genetic variants, dysregulated gene expression, precise cellular processes, pathogenesis, and PR-associated anomalies are documented. This review presents the current understanding of PR phenotypes, the proposed pathogenetic processes underlying them, select genes associated with PR, and available animal models that could be used to better understand the genetic basis and phenotypic variation of PR.
Keywords: mandible; micrognathia; nasopharynx; tongue; cleft palate; stickler; Treacher Collins; velocardiofacial syndrome mandible; micrognathia; nasopharynx; tongue; cleft palate; stickler; Treacher Collins; velocardiofacial syndrome

1. Introduction

Pierre Robin is an ill-defined disorder with specific mandibulofacial involvement that continues to defy a consistent definition. Since being named for the physician who provided an early description [1,2], it was variously defined as a set of anomalies that can include micro- or retrognathia, glossoptosis, respiratory obstruction, and cleft palate (CP), and termed Pierre Robin syndrome, sequence, anomalad, or complex [3,4,5,6]. Micro- and retrognathia are the most common terms used to describe mandibular phenotypes in mandibulofacial dysostosis, yet the current lack of precision in usage of these terms in diagnoses of mandibular dysmorphology does not critically consider the potentially distinct etiology of these phenotypes and their influence on the possible sequelae of anomalies. Micrognathia describes a mandible that is absolutely reduced in size, indicating that the mandible is primarily affected, while retrognathia refers to a normally sized mandible that is placed posteriorly relative to the upper jaw. Thus, micrognathia and retrognathia, while providing similar facial profiles, are produced by different primary developmental processes, and each may integrate differently with tongue and palatal development. When mandibular dysmorphology occurs with glossoptosis, respiratory obstruction, and in some cases, a CP, the condition is referred to as Pierre Robin (PR), a term we adopt here.

2. Historical Perspective

Stomatologist Pierre Robin published an article in 1923 [1] describing a triad of clinical findings in a series of patients, namely, micrognathia, glossoptosis, and obstruction of the upper airways [7]. Following his widely read contribution to the literature on micrognathia in newborns [2], this triad became known as Pierre Robin syndrome by clinicians [3]. Robin considered acquired or congenital glossoptosis as a consequence of a small mandible leading to respiratory problems. These conditions ultimately result in “physical backwardness” in infancy that persists into adulthood. He also introduced the association of these anomalies with CP [2]. Robin linked the respiratory problems in these children to their physical and psychological development, and indicated that infants with severe retrognathia rarely survive beyond 18 months of age [2]. Through the 1960s, clinicians noted that PR generally occurred without other significant birth defects, although the case of a two-month-old male infant with PR and severe bilateral congenital glaucoma indicated ocular involvement in some affected individuals [8]. Natal teeth were associated with one PR patient in a cohort of infants born at Foothills Provincial Hospital in Calgary, Canada, between 1967 and 1984 [9].
The condition was known as Pierre Robin syndrome for nearly 50 years before it was understood that multiple etiologies could underlie the same clinical findings, which did not fit with the prevailing definition of a syndrome: a combination of symptoms resulting from a single cause [10]. In the 1970s, the term Pierre Robin anomalad was introduced [4,5], with the implication that the condition was not a specifically delineated syndrome. Anomalad signifies an etiologically nonspecific complex that can occur as a component of various genetic or teratogenic syndromes of known cause, syndromes of unknown etiology, or as an isolated symptom complex secondary to positional deformation or disruption [11,12]. Anomalad denotes a pattern of morphologic defects that stem from a single, localized, structural anomaly resulting in a cascade of consequent defects [13], so the term implies a sequence of developmental consequences of a primary defect. Hanson and Smith [4] hypothesized the primary pathogenic mechanism of ”Robin anomalad” to be early mandibular hypoplasia with secondary posterior displacement and interposition of the tongue between the closing palatal shelves [4]. The characteristic U-shaped CP of PR individuals [11,14,15], distinct from the more common V-shaped CP, was proposed to have developmental and clinical significance, as well as providing strong support for the proposed etiopathogenetic mechanism involving a small and retropositioned mandible that keeps the tongue high in the nasopharynx, preventing the rotation, medial growth, and fusion of the palatal shelves [4,10]. Cohen presented an extensive review of the conditions in which “Robin malformation complex” can occur along with data useful for diagnoses of patients with cleft lips and/or palates and associated anomalies [16]. By this time, it was recognized that the triad of mandibular hypoplasia, glossoptosis, and a posterior U-shaped CP is a pathogenetically and etiologically heterogeneous condition that can be an isolated defect or one feature of many different syndromes.
Carey et al. [6] used the term Robin sequence in linking the triad to neuromuscular conditions. The term sequence was used with the understanding that there is a temporal succession, and a potential causative pathogenesis, in the order of appearance of the anomalies, namely, primary micrognathia appearing first, followed by glossoptosis and respiratory obstruction, and in some cases, CP [17,18]. The term “sequence” was formally challenged by a comparative analysis of PR and isolated CP patients, but the data examined supported both a sequential genesis initiated by a small mandible and a primary growth disturbance of both the maxilla and mandible [19]. This lack of consensus on whether the condition represents a mechanistic sequence of events resulting from a single primary event (small mandible), a condition of primary growth disturbances of several tissues [19,20,21], or a combination of both processes indicates a need for additional research on the developmental and genetic mechanisms of PR. Such studies could also inform on the etiology of the heterogeneous group of common birth defects, including glossoptosis and CP.

3. Epidemiology of PR

The incidence of PR was estimated at between 1 in 8000 to 1 in 14,000 live births in a few epidemiological studies [17,18], and reported as much higher (1:2685 live births) in the East of Scotland region of the United Kingdom [22]. The Dutch birth incidence of PR was estimated to be 1:5600 live births, with a slight female predominance, and was estimated to occur in a third of the CP population, with PR patients having a more severe cleft grade than the general CP population [23]. Another study described PR as having multiple subdivisions [24]. A study based on a population from a large cleft lip and palate clinic in Pretoria, South Africa, differentiated Fairbairn–Robin triad (FRT) from Siebold–Robin sequence (SRS) on the basis of the presence (FRT) or absence (SRS) of CP, with a higher incidence of PR occurring in white males and females relative to other ethnicities surveyed, white females being most commonly affected [24]. Mortality for infants with PR and additional or syndromic malformations was estimated from 1.7% to 11.3%, up to 26% [25,26,27,28,29]. Current literature gives highly variable syndromic frequencies for PR that range from 20–40% [30], while others showed approximately 60% of patients have syndromic features [31]. Overall, the frequency worldwide is unknown, in part because of the lack of consensus about the nature of the condition, and because the occurrence varies with ancestry, geographic location, maternal age, prenatal exposures, and socioeconomic status [32,33].

4. Uncertainty of Diagnosis

That the triad of mandibular dysmorphology, glossoptosis, and CP co-occur is certain. That the onset of these anomalies is a causative sequence is not. Although there is a lack of consensus regarding the etiology of PR, three diagnostic categories exist based on whether mandibular dysmorphology, glossoptosis, and CP appear in isolation or with other anomalies (Figure 1). Syndromic PR is defined when the triad is present as part of a syndrome, appearing coincidentally with Stickler, 22q11.2 deletion, and Treacher Collins syndromes, and with campomelic dysplasia [17,18,34]. PR-Plus is defined when additional congenital abnormalities accompany the PR triad, but a known syndrome is not indicated. Nonsyndromic or isolated PR is defined when the triad is the only clinical feature in an otherwise typically developing infant. It is unknown whether the etiology of PR anomalies varies according to diagnostic category. There are excellent reviews of mandible, tongue, and palate development (e.g., [35,36,37]) and limited studies of mouse models that show PR phenotypes [38,39,40,41], but most studies are descriptive, without a focus on how these anomalies might be mechanistically, molecularly, or developmentally related.
The idea of PR as a sequence implies that PR phenotypes are developmental consequences of a primary defect. Developmental consequences could occur due to cells sensing and reacting to their physical environment through mechanotransduction, which is the cellular process of translating mechanical forces into biochemical signals or into the activation of diverse signalling pathways [42], or through the differential reaction of specific cell types to a genetic variant. Studies of mechanotransduction have shown that many diseases result from modifications in the force transmissions among cellular components and tissues that can be traced to changes in extra cellular matrix mechanics, cytoskeleton dynamics, the mechanosensing process of the cell, or altered downstream signaling pathways [42,43]. In the case of PR, defects in mechanotransduction of the involved tissues could underlie one or all of the defects, or the genetic variants currently associated with PR-like diseases could be functionally related through a shared genetic network. The lack of a critical study of the molecular and developmental relationships of PR anomalies is at the basis of uncertainty in diagnosis and provides an impetus for future research.
There is no gold standard for diagnosing PR. Diagnosis is rarely made prenatally but can be determined with a physical exam at birth. When diagnosed at birth, PR may be the only malformation noted, or may be associated with other dysmorphic features, with affected infants displaying a wide range of Apgar scores. Syndromic PR patients were found to have significantly lower Apgar scores and longer hospital stays [44]. Even when syndromic PR is diagnosed, there is little to no information available regarding prognosis [25]. Facial anomalies invariably require therapy and close follow-up, and may require corrective surgery, while imposing a financial and emotional burden on patients and their families. Parents of PR individuals bear a particular burden in that the diagnosis is confusing and overwhelming [45] and because of the profound variation in the anomalies, degree of respiratory distress, and eating difficulties [2] that decrease quality of life and cognitive potential.
While most patients can be managed without surgical intervention and many improve with age, a patient may become more symptomatic and the airway obstruction worsened due to the development of conditions such as temporomandibular joint ankylosis [23,46]. Patients presenting with an associated syndrome were more than twice as likely to require surgical intervention than isolated PR cases (53% vs. 25%) [23]. While a tracheostomy involves many quality of life considerations and appears to have a higher mortality associated in syndromic PR patients [47], mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) requires two operations, i.e., one to create mandibular osteomies and apply distraction devices, and a second to remove the devices after completion of distraction and consolidation. Feeding issues may be addressed by glossopexy (tongue–lip adhesion) or MDO [48]. Due to the individuality of each PR case presentation, no one treatment is best suited to all patients, and each possible intervention is accompanied by benefits and risks that must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

5. Development of PR Phenotypes

There are three current theories regarding development of PR phenotypes: (1) Mechanical Theory: Mandibular hypoplasia arises between weeks 7 to 11 of gestation, preventing the tongue from descending and interfering with the nasopharynx, causing respiratory and feeding complications [49]; (2) Mandible Compression Theory: Intrauterine compression due to oligo/polyhydramnios is associated with PR phenotype [50]; (3) Neurological Maturation Theory: Fetal oral muscular activity is required for normal development of the mandible. In the absence of normal esophageal motility and pharyngolaryngeal tone due to neurological or muscular defects, mandibular hypoplasia and possible CP are considered secondary defects [51]. Development of the mandibulofacial region involves the first pharyngeal arch and growth and fusion of facial prominences comprised of cells that interact with the neural ectoderm of the forebrain. This requires precise coordination of signaling among diverse cells, tissues, and organs [52,53]. The mesenchymal core of pharyngeal arches is derived from the cranial neural crest and mesoderm and is covered externally by ectoderm-derived epithelium, and internally by endoderm [52]. Early in craniofacial development, the maxillary and mandibular prominences form within the first pharyngeal arch [35,54]. The development of maxillary and mandibular prominences is sensitive to distal-less (Dlx) gene dosage, and their distinction within the first pharyngeal arch is achieved by the bounded expression domains of Dlx5/6 genes that rely on a nested pattern of Dlx gene expression [54,55]. Subsequent patterning by a series of transcription factors of various cell populations give rise to part of the upper lip, the maxillae, zygomatic, squamous temporal, and vomer bones from the maxillary prominence, and to Meckel’s cartilage, the mandible, the malleus, incus, and muscles of mastication from the mandibular prominence. Hooper et al. 2017 [56] profiled the transcriptomes of the epithelium and mesenchyme of the various facial prominences at critical periods of murine craniofacial development and revealed dynamic gene expression changes over time [56]. Genes enriched in the maxillary prominence are involved in Wnt, retinoic acid, and Notch signaling pathways, as well as synaptic function, while genes enriched in mandibular prominence are involved in muscle and skeletal development, indicating the transcriptional programs for the formation of the tongue, Meckel’s cartilage, and the mandible [56].
The tongue and mandible have common origins and are coordinated in their development [36]. The anterior 2/3 of the tongue forms from median and lateral tongue buds that arise from the floor of the first pharyngeal arch. These buds grow rostrally and are eventually filled by occipital myoblasts to form the intrinsic tongue muscles. The posterior 1/3 of the tongue is made from swellings originating from the second, third, and fourth pharyngeal arches. Hedgehog, Transforming Growth Factor β (TGFβ), Wnt, and Notch signaling pathways contribute to mediation of appropriate signaling interactions between the epithelial, cranial neural crest, and mesodermal cell populations that are required to form the tongue [57].
During mandibulofacial development, medial projections of the maxillary processes form palatal shelves that are initially positioned vertically at E13.5 in mouse (Figure 2A,B). Typically, the developing tongue expands and protrudes relatively high into the oronasal cavity, but subsequently descends into a space provided by the growing mandible. As the tongue descends, the palatal shelves that were restrained by the tongue rotate upward into a horizontal position immediately above the tongue, continue to grow, and eventually begin to fuse around E14.5 (Figure 2C). As the shelves fuse medially at the midline, anteriorly with the primary palate, and superiorly with the nasal septum, the palate separates the nasal and oral cavities, permitting simultaneous respiration and feeding (Figure 2D) [58].
Pathogenesis of PR phenotypes is thought to occur when the tongue is unable to descend into a space diminished by a small and/or malpositioned mandible, preventing the palatal shelves from rotating medially to meet at the midline [59]. This explanation fits logically with gross embryological knowledge of mandibulofacial development and supports a mechanical relationship between the mandible and tongue [35] but there is no consensus on this view [60], it has not been tested experimentally, and a molecular and cellular description of the process is not available. Several human genes required for palatal fusion were identified, and targeted gene mutations in mice revealed many of the molecular determinants of palatal shelf growth, elevation, and fusion [61]. As noted above, many of the genes involved in tongue development were identified [55], and gene expression patterns of early mandibular development are known [53,54]. What is not known is how these genetic instructions, or a totally different set, are integrated in the pathogenesis of PR to produce the triad of phenotypes.
An example of PR phenotypes being produced by changes in a single protein coding gene is now available in a mouse model. Prdm16 (PR/SET Domain 16) encodes a transcriptional cofactor that regulates TGFβ signaling, with expression patterns that are consistent with a role in palate and craniofacial development [38]. Nonsyndromic CP caused by an intronic Prdm16 splicing mutation in the cleft secondary palate 1 (csp1) N-ethyl-N-nitrosurea-induced mouse model was thought to be the result of micrognathia and failed palate shelf elevation due to physical obstruction by the tongue, resembling human PR-like cleft secondary palate [38]. Conditional gene trap cassettes were used to develop a generic strategy for generating conditional mutations, validated in mice carrying a multipurpose allele of the Prdm16 transcription factor [39]. The phenotype of the Prdm16cGT and Prdm16cGTreinv mice was virtually identical to the previously reported Prdm16csp1 phenotype [38,39]. By E15.5, Prdm16+/+ embryos showed normal anatomy of the mandible, tongue, and palate (Figure 3A–C) while Prdm16cGT/cGT embryos showed the PR-CP phenotype consisting of a tongue protruding upward against cartilage of the developing cranial base, a CP, narrowed airways, and a hypomorphic mandible (Figure 3D–F).
CP can occur with apparently normal tongue and mandible development, but mutations affecting early mandibular development can have deleterious effects on tongue formation and subsequently result in CP. Using an in vitro suspension palate culture system, a primary role for Prdm16 in the developing mandible or tongue and not the palate shelves is evident in Prdm16csp1 mutants that undergo normal palate elevation and fusion upon removal of the mandible and tongue [38]. Similarly, a mutation of Erk2 in neural crest derivatives phenocopies the human PR phenotype, and highlights the interconnection of palate, tongue and mandible development [62]. Wnt1-Cre;Erk2fl/fl mice exhibited CP with elevation defects, microglossia, tongue malposition, disruption of the tongue muscle patterning, and compromised tendon development [62]. Culturing these mutants in the absence of the tongue and palate was sufficient to rescue the clefting defects, supporting a primary malformation of the mandible and/or tongue as the cause of impaired palate shelf elevation. The tongue phenotype was rescued after culture in isolation, however, indicating that it might also be a secondary defect [62]. The consensus view is that influences from other craniofacial and oral structures, including movement of the tongue and growth of the cranial base and mandible contribute to palatal shelf elevation and fusion, but intrinsic properties of the palatal shelves also play a role [61]. A recent study of primary palate fusion demonstrated the unique expression profiles of each cell population involved, how gene expression information for single cells representing these cell populations are impacted by mutations or environmental insults, and how signals that integrate the behavior of these cell populations are required during fusion [63].
A thorough understanding of the production of PR phenotypes requires knowledge of the molecular pathways that might contribute to the regulation of processes that supervise development of the tongue, palate, and mandible individually, as well as the hierarchical or nested control of the integration of these structures. The biomechanical forces produced and sensed by tissues of varying material properties as they expand with growth certainly contributes to mandibulofacial development, and so, logically, should play a role in the production of PR phenotypes. Determining the role of these forces requires a serious study of how mechanical signals are transformed into biological signals (mechanotransduction) during mandibulofacial development.

6. Genetics of PR

PR is poorly characterized at the genetic level. The transcription factor SOX9 is a master regulator of chondrocyte fate essential for cartilage formation and skeletal development. Intragenic, loss-of-function SOX9 mutations cause campomelic dysplasia, of which PR is a feature [64,65]. Variants affecting the spatiotemporal activity of SOX9 regulatory elements cause isolated PR [66], and regulatory SOX9 variants were also identified in PR-Plus [34,67,68]. SOX9 positively regulates transcription of Col2a1, Col11a1, and Col11a2 during cartilage formation in mouse and chicken [69,70,71]. Mutations in these three genes cause Stickler syndrome, the syndrome most commonly associated with PR [27,31,72]. The involvement of these genes in PR underscores the importance of the proper formation of Meckel’s cartilage to mandibular outgrowth, perturbation of which can be a primary event in PR. However, PR occurs in PR-Plus forms and in association with a wide variety of less common syndromes, for which genetic causes are not completely known [73,74,75]. Knowledge of these genes may give insight into the wider morphogenetic impact of their variants or mutations and thereby influence prediction of clinical trajectories, leading to improved, patient-specific treatments. Table 1 lists select genes for human syndromes associated with PR phenotypes as reported in the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM; www.omim.org), the Monarch Initiative (www.monarchinitiative.org), and reviewed in Tan et al. 2013 [74] and Logjes et al. 2018 [73]. The variety of genes listed in Table 1 and these databases and reviews reveal the genetic and mechanistic complexity of PR. Previous screens looked for intragenic mutations in SOX9 and other candidate genes in syndromic PR [76], but no real concerted effort for nonsyndromic PR in humans. Further investigation is required to identify and confirm that genes implicated in human PR are causative through animal models.

7. Animal Models as a Means for Understanding PR

There are many animal models exhibiting PR-related phenotypes, including mandibular dysmorphology, malformed tongue, and/or CP (Mouse Genome Informatics, the Monarch Initiative, [73,74]) (Table 2). The various candidate genes involved in these models have diverse functions, reflecting the heterogeneity of genetic influences that can result in a PR phenotype. Heterozygous inactivation of Sox9 results in a shortened mandible, abnormal tongue, and CP [77]. Conditional, heterozygous deletion of Sox9 in the neural crest also results in a shortened mandible and CP [41,78]. One model involves deletion of a long-range enhancer element that regulates Sox9 expression in mice and is conserved in humans in the region affected by deletions and translocations in some PR-Plus cases [41]; however, it does not display the full PR triad, lacking tongue and palate defects. Loss-of-function mutations in collagen genes were found in syndromes associated with PR phenotypes and mice homozygous for chondrodysplasia (Col11a1cho/cho), cartilage matrix deficiency (Acancmd/cmd), and disproportionate micromelia (Col2a1Dmm/Dmm) exhibited macroglossia and tongue obstruction during palatogenesis resulting in CP, thereby supporting the hypothesis for the PR sequence [79,80]. TGFβ/
Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) signaling is critical for the development of the mandible, the palate and the tongue [57,81,82]. PR-related phenotypes are observed in the null or conditional knockout mice of the genes in TGFβ/BMP signaling, including Acvr2a [83], Acvr1 [84], Bmp2 [85], Bmp7 [86], Prdm16 [38], and Tak1 [87], indicating a potential role of TGFβ/BMP signaling in PR pathogenesis.
While studies of animal models provided candidate genes for PR and insights into the underlying pathogenic molecular pathways, they did not elucidate whether physical constraints contribute to abnormal development, or to what extent phenotypes represent a causative series stemming from a primary event, such as micrognathia. For example, mandibulofacial dysostoses, such as Treacher Collins syndrome (caused by mutations in TCOF1, POLR1C, POLR1D), Miller syndrome (caused by mutations in DHODH), and Nager syndrome (caused by mutations in SF3B4), were reported to include features of PR in patients, but may not represent true PR phenotypes. Studies of a Treacher Collins mouse model showed that the mandibulofacial dysostosis is due to abnormalities in ribosomal biogenesis and increased apoptosis, but did not demonstrate the PR phenotype of glossoptosis leading to CP [88,89]. Another instance that questions whether constraint contributes to PR phenotype is the neural crest cell-specific mutant line, Med23fl/fl;Wnt1-Cre, generated by Dash et al. 2020 [90] that exhibits micrognathia, glossoptosis, CP and cleidocranial dysplasia, providing a novel PR mouse model. To examine the role of the tongue in CP in this model, the maxillary apparatus of unfused palates in mutant and control E13.5 embryos were dissected and placed in ex vivo culture. After 72 h of culture, the control palatal shelves developed rugae and fused, while the palatal shelves of mutant embryos formed rugae but remained unfused. These necessary and informative assays revealed the enduring inability of the Med23fl/fl;Wnt1-Cre palatal shelves to close when an obstructive tongue is no longer present, but can not account for the potential developmental effects of a large, superiorly placed tongue during palatal shelf formation.
Although animal models were successfully used to reveal the developmental and pathogenic mechanisms in the mandible, tongue, and/or palate, most of the candidate genes identified from animal models are not confirmed in PR patients. Furthermore, new models must be established to study the PR-associated mutations found in patients with PR and other related syndromes. Novel animal models for PR could help us better understand the pathogenic mechanisms and facilitate discovering diagnostic strategies and therapeutic solutions for PR.

8. Conclusions

The etiology of PR remains unclear despite recent advances in craniofacial research. While the primary defect in many PR patients appears to be mandibular hypoplasia, as we learn more about the complex relationship among developing mandibulofacial structures the developmental basis of the condition may be variable and is not yet clearly elucidated. The lack of information regarding the etiology of PR phenotypes motivates novel experimental study of these conditions. Mouse models of the PR phenotype, such as the Prdm16 gene trap model shown in Figure 2, provide a means for investigating the role of mechanotransduction, the molecular basis, and the phenotypic consequences of normal and perturbed development, and could allow further definition of the mechanisms underlying development of the PR phenotype.

Funding

This research was funded by NIH/NIDCR 1 R01 DE029322-01 grant (MW, GH, EWJ) and NIH/NIDCR 1 R01 DE027677-03 (JTR, SMMP).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the technical expertise of Mizuho Kawasaki, B.S., and Emily Durham, in preparation of the specimens. Specimens imaged for Figure 2 and Figure 3 were produced and sacrificed at Midwestern University and processed at the Pennsylvania State University in compliance with animal welfare guidelines approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the appropriate university.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Robin, P. La glossoptose. Son diagnostic, ses consequences, son traitement. Bull. Acad. Natl. Med. 1923, 89, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  2. Robin, P. Glossoptosis due to atresia and hypotrophy of the mandible. Am. J. Dis. Child 1934, 48, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Shprintzen, D.R.J. The implications of the diagnosis of Robin Sequence. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 1992, 29, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hanson, J.W.; Smith, D.W. U-shaped palatal defect in the Robin anomalad: Developmental and clinical relevance. J. Pediatr. 1975, 87, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cohen, M.M., Jr. The Robin anomalad-its nonspecificity and associated syndromes. J. Oral Surg. 1976, 34, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Carey, J.C.; Fineman, R.M.; Ziter, F.A. The Robin sequence as a consequence of malformation, dysplasia, and neuromuscular syndromes. J. Pediatr. 1982, 101, 858–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mackay, D.R. Controversies in the diagnosis and management of the Robin Sequence. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2011, 22, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Smith, J.L.; Stowe, F.R. The Pierre Robin syndrome (glossoptosis, micrognathia, cleft palate): A review of 39 cases with emphasis on associated ocular lesions. Pediatrics 1961, 27, 128–133. [Google Scholar]
  9. Leung, A.K. Natal teeth. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1986, 140, 249–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. St-Hilaire, H.; Buchbinder, D. Maxillofacial pathology and management of Pierre Robin sequence. Otolaryngol. Clin. N. Am. 2000, 33, 1241–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sadewitz, V.L. Robin Sequence: Changes in thinking leading to changes in patient care. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 1992, 29, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Shprintzen, R.; Siegel-Sadewitz, V. The relationship of communication disorders to syndrome identification. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 1982, 47, 338–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Smith, D.W. Classification, nomenclature, and naming of morphologic defects. J. Pediatr. 1975, 87, 162–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shprintzen, R.J. Pierre Robin, micrognathia, and airway obstruction: The dependency of treatment on accurate diagnosis. Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 1988, 26, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Larson, M.; Hellquist, R.; Jakobsson, O.P. Dental abnormalities and ectopic eruption in patients with isolated cleft palate. Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Hand Surg. 1998, 32, 203–212. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, M. Syndromes with cleft lip and cleft palate. Cleft Palate J. 1978, 15, 308. [Google Scholar]
  17. Vatlach, S.; Maas, C.; Poets, C.F. Birth prevalence and initial treatment of Robin sequence in Germany: A prospective epidemiologic study. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2014, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Printzlau, A.; Andersen, M. Pierre Robin Sequence in Denmark: A retrospective population-based epidemiological study. Cleft Palate-Cran J. 2004, 41, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Amaratunga, N.A.D.S. A comparative clinical study of Pierre Robin syndrome and isolated cleft palate. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1989, 27, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cahill, K.C.; Orr, D.J.A. Glossoptosis in Pierre Robin sequence. Arch. Dis. Child. 2019, 104, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pasyayan, H.M.; Lewis, M.B. Clinical experience with the Robin sequence. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 1984, 21, 270–276. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wright, M.; Mehendale, F.; Urquhart, D.S. Epidemiology of Robin sequence with cleft palate in the East of Scotland between 2004 and 2013. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2018, 53, 1040–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Paes, E.C.; van Nunen, D.P.F.; Basart, H.; Don Griot, J.P.W.; van Hagen, J.M.; van der Horst, C.M.A.M.; van den Boogaard, M.-J.H.; Breugem, C.C. Birth prevalence of Robin sequence in the Netherlands from 2000-2010: A retrospective population-based study in a large Dutch cohort and review of the literature. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2015, 167A, 1972–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bütow, K.-W.; Zwahlen, R.A.; Morkel, J.A.; Naidoo, S. Pierre Robin sequence: Subdivision, data, theories, and treatment-Part 1: History, subdivisions, and data. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 6, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Evans, K.N.; Sie, K.C.; Hopper, R.A.; Glass, R.P.; Hing, A.V.; Cunningham, M.L. Robin Sequence: From diagnosis to development of an effective management plan. Pediatrics 2011, 127, 936–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Caouette-Laberge, L.; Bayet, B.; Larocque, Y. The Pierre Robin sequence: Review of 125 cases and volution of treatment modalities. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1994, 93, 934–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Holder-Espinasse, M.; Abadie, V.; Cormier-Daire, V.; Beyler, C.; Manach, Y.; Munnich, A.; Lyonnet, S.; Couly, G.; Amiel, J. Pierre Robin Sequence: A series of 117 consecutive cases. J. Pediatr. 2001, 139, 588–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. van den Elzen, A.P.M.; Semmekrot, B.A.; Bongers, E.M.H.F.; Huygen, P.L.M.; Marres, H.A.M. Diagnosis and treatment of the Pierre Robin sequence: Results of a retrospective clinical study and review of the literature. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2001, 160, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marques, I.L.; de Sousa, T.V.; Carneiro, A.F.; Barbieri, M.A.; Bettiol, H.; Pereira Gutierrez, M.R. Clinical experience with infants with Robin sequence: A prospective study. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 2001, 38, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Isolated Pierre Robin Sequence. Available online: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/isolated-pierre-robin-sequence (accessed on 13 August 2020).
  31. Izumi, K.; Konczal, L.L.; Mitchell, A.L.; Jones, M.C. Underlying genetic diagnosis of Pierre Robin Sequence: Retrospective chart review at two children’s hospitals and a systematic literature review. J. Pediatr. 2012, 160, 645–650.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mossey, P.A.; Little, J.; Munger, R.G.; Dixon, M.J.; Shaw, W.C. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet 2009, 374, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wehby, G.; Cassell, C. The impact of orofacial clefts on quality of life and healthcare use and costs: Orofacial clefts, quality of life, and health care. Oral Dis. 2010, 16, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fukami, M.; Tsuchiya, T.; Takada, S.; Kanbara, A.; Asahara, H.; Igarashi, A.; Kamiyama, Y.; Nishimura, G.; Ogata, T. Complex genomic rearrangement in the SOX9 5′ region in a patient with Pierre Robin sequence and hypoplastic left scapula. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 2012, 158A, 1529–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Parada, C.; Chai, Y. Mandible and tongue development. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2015, 115, 31–58. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yu, K.; Ornitz, D.M. Histomorphological study of palatal shelf elevation during murine secondary palate formation. Dev. Dyn. 2011, 240, 1737–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mina, M. Regulation of mandibular growth and morphogenesis. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 2001, 12, 276–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bjork, B.C.; Turbe-Doan, A.; Prysak, M.; Herron, B.J.; Beier, D.R. Prdm16 is required for normal palatogenesis in mice. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2010, 19, 774–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Strassman, A.; Schnütgen, F.; Dai, Q.; Jones, J.C.; Gomez, A.C.; Pitstick, L.; Holton, N.E.; Moskal, R.; Leslie, E.R.; von Melchner, H.; et al. Generation of a multipurpose Prdm16 mouse allele by targeted gene trapping. Dis. Model. Mech. 2017, 10, 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shull, L.C.; Sen, R.; Menzel, J.; Goyama, S.; Kurokawa, M.; Artinger, K.B. The conserved and divergent roles of Prdm3 and Prdm16 in zebrafish and mouse craniofacial development. Dev. Biol. 2020, 461, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Long, H.K.; Osterwalder, M.; Welsh, I.C.; Hansen, K.; Davies, J.O.J.; Liu, Y.E.; Koska, M.; Adams, A.T.; Aho, R.; Arora, N.; et al. Loss of extreme long-range enhancers in human neural crest drives a craniofacial disorder. Cell Stem Cell 2020, 27, 765–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jaalouk, D.E.; Lammerding, J. Mechanotransduction gone awry. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Stewart, S.; Darwood, A.; Masouros, S.; Higgins, C.; Ramasamy, A. Mechanotransduction in osteogenesis. Bone Jt. Res. 2020, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Cruz, M.J.; Kerschner, J.E.; Beste, D.J.; Conley, S.F. Pierre Robin sequences: Secondary respiratory difficulties and intrinsic feeding abnormalities. Laryngoscope 1999, 109, 1632–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sandow, R.; Kilpatrick, N.M.; Tan, T.Y.; Raj, S.; Forrest, L.E. Parental experiences and genetic counsellor roles in Pierre Robin sequence. J. Commun. Genet. 2020, 11, 475–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Goel, A.; Dave, N.; Shah, H.; Muneshwar, P. The troublesome triumvirate: Temporomandibular joint ankylosis, Pierre Robin syndrome and severe obstructive sleep apnoea. Indian J. Anaesth. 2020, 64, 800–803. [Google Scholar]
  47. Runyan, C.M.; Uribe-Rivera, A.; Tork, S.; Shikary, T.A.; Ehsan, Z.; Weaver, K.N.; Hossain, M.M.; Gordon, C.B.; Pan, B.S. Management of Airway Obstruction in Infants With Pierre Robin Sequence. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2018, 6, e1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, R.S.; Hoppe, I.C.; Taylor, J.A.; Bartlett, S.P. Surgical management and outcomes of Pierre Robin Sequence: A comparison of mandibular distraction osteogenesis and tongue-lip adhesion. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2018, 142, 480–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Breugem, C.C.; Mink van der Molen, A.B. What is ‘Pierre Robin sequence’? J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2009, 62, 1555–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bütow, K.-W.; Zwahlen, R.A.; Morkel, J.A.; Naidoo, S. Pierre Robin sequence: Subdivision, data, theories, and treatment–Part 3: Prevailing controversial theories related to Pierre Robin sequence. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 6, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  51. Abadie, V.; Morisseau-Durand, M.-P.; Beyler, C.; Manach, Y.; Couly, G. Brainstem dysfunction: A possible neuroembryological pathogenesis of isolated Pierre Robin sequence. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2002, 161, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brugmann, S.A.; Tapadia, M.D.; Helms, J.A. The molecular origins of species-specific facial pattern. In Current Topics in Developmental Biology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; Volume 73, pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hu, D.; Marcucio, R.S. A SHH-responsive signaling center in the forebrain regulates craniofacial morphogenesis via the facial ectoderm. Development 2009, 136, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Depew, M.J.; Lufkin, T.; Rubenstein, J.L.R. Specification of jaw subdivisions by Dlx genes. Science 2002, 298, 381–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Depew, M.J.; Simpson, C.A.; Morasso, M.; Rubenstein, J.L.R. Reassessing the Dlx code: The genetic regulation of branchial arch skeletal pattern and development. J. Anat. 2005, 207, 501–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Hooper, J.E.; Feng, W.; Li, H.; Leach, S.M.; Phang, T.; Siska, C.; Jones, K.L.; Spritz, R.A.; Hunter, L.E.; Williams, T. Systems biology of facial development: Contributions of ectoderm and mesenchyme. Dev. Biol. 2017, 426, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Cobourne, M.T.; Iseki, S.; Birjandi, A.A.; Adel Al-Lami, H.; Thauvin-Robinet, C.; Xavier, G.M.; Liu, K.J. How to make a tongue: Cellular and molecular regulation of muscle and connective tissue formation during mammalian tongue development. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 91, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dixon, M.J.; Marazita, M.L.; Beaty, T.H.; Murray, J.C. Cleft lip and palate: Understanding genetic and environmental influences. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Edwards, J.R.G.; Newall, D.R. The Pierre Robin syndrome reassessed in the light of recent research. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 1985, 38, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hsieh, S.T.; Woo, A.S. Pierre Robin sequence. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2019, 46, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gritli-Linde, A. Molecular control of secondary palate development. Dev. Biol. 2007, 301, 309–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parada, C.; Han, D.; Grimaldi, A.; Sarrión, P.; Park, S.S.; Pelikan, R.; Sanchez-Lara, P.A.; Chai, Y. Disruption of the ERK/MAPK pathway in neural crest cells as a potential cause of Pierre Robin sequence. Development 2015, 142, 3734–3745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, H.; Jones, K.L.; Hooper, J.E.; Williams, T. The molecular anatomy of mammalian upper lip and primary palate fusion at single cell resolution. Development 2019, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Foster, J.W.; Dominguez-Steglich, M.A.; Guioli, S.; Kwok, C.; Weller, P.A.; Stevanović, M.; Weissenbach, J.; Mansour, S.; Young, I.D.; Goodfellow, P.N.; et al. Campomelic dysplasia and autosomal sex reversal caused by mutations in an SRY -related gene. Nature 1994, 372, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Houston, C.S.; Opitz, J.M.; Spranger, J.W.; Macpherson, R.I.; Reed, M.H.; Gilbert, E.F.; Herrmann, J.; Schinzel, A. The campomelic syndrome: Review, report of 17 cases, and follow-up on the currently 17-year-old boy first reported by Maroteaux et al in 1971. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1983, 15, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Benko, S.; Fantes, J.A.; Amiel, J.; Kleinjan, D.-J.; Thomas, S.; Ramsay, J.; Jamshidi, N.; Essafi, A.; Heaney, S.; Gordon, C.T.; et al. Highly conserved non-coding elements on either side of SOX9 associated with Pierre Robin sequence. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gordon, C.T.; Attanasio, C.; Bhatia, S.; Benko, S.; Ansari, M.; Tan, T.Y.; Munnich, A.; Pennacchio, L.A.; Abadie, V.; Temple, I.K.; et al. Identification of novel craniofacial regulatory domains located far upstream of SOX9 and disrupted in Pierre Robin sequence. Hum. Mutat. 2014, 35, 1011–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Smyk, M.; Roeder, E.; Cheung, S.W.; Szafranski, P.; Stankiewicz, P. A de novo 1.58 Mb deletion, including MAP2K6 and mapping 1.28 Mb upstream to SOX9, identified in a patient with Pierre Robin sequence and osteopenia with multiple fractures. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 2015, 167, 1842–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Akiyama, H.; Lyons, J.P.; Mori-Akiyama, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, Z.; Deng, J.M.; Taketo, M.M.; Nakamura, T.; Behringer, R.R.; et al. Interactions between Sox9 and β-catenin control chondrocyte differentiation. Genes Dev. 2004, 18, 1072–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bi, W.; Deng, J.M.; Zhang, Z.; Behringer, R.R.; de Crombrugghe, B. Sox9 is required for cartilage formation. Nat. Genet. 1999, 22, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yamashita, S.; Kataoka, K.; Yamamoto, H.; Kato, T.; Hara, S.; Yamaguchi, K.; Renard-Guillet, C.; Katou, Y.; Shirahige, K.; Ochi, H.; et al. Comparative analysis demonstrates cell type-specific conservation of SOX9 targets between mouse and chicken. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Karempelis, P.; Hagen, M.; Morrell, N.; Roby, B.B. Associated syndromes in patients with Pierre Robin Sequence. Int. J. Pediatric Otorhinolaryngol. 2020, 131, 109842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Logjes, R.J.H.; Breugem, C.C.; Haaften, G.V.; Paes, E.C.; Sperber, G.H.; van den Boogaard, M.-J.H.; Farlie, P.G. The ontogeny of Robin sequence. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 2018, 176, 1349–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Tan, T.Y.; Kilpatrick, N.; Farlie, P.G. Developmental and genetic perspectives on Pierre Robin sequence. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 2013, 163C, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Xu, J.X.; Kilpatrick, N.; Baker, N.L.; Penington, A.; Farlie, P.G.; Tan, T.Y. Clinical and molecular characterisation of children with Pierre Robin sequence and additional anomalies. Mol. Syndr. 2016, 7, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gomez-Ospina, N.; Bernstein, J.A. Clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular outcomes in a series of 66 patients with Pierre Robin sequence and literature review: 22q11.2 deletion is less common than other chromosomal anomalies. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2016, 170, 870–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Bi, W.; Huang, W.; Whitworth, D.J.; Deng, J.M.; Zhang, Z.; Behringer, R.R.; de Crombrugghe, B. Haploinsufficiency of Sox9 results in defective cartilage primordia and premature skeletal mineralization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 6698–6703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mori-Akiyama, Y.; Akiyama, H.; Rowitch, D.H.; de Crombrugghe, B. Sox9 is required for determination of the chondrogenic cell lineage in the cranial neural crest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 9360–9365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ricks, J.E.; Ryder, V.M.; Bridgewater, L.C.; Schaalje, B.; Seegmiller, R.E. Altered mandibular development precedes the time of palate closure in mice homozygous for disproportionate micromelia: An oral clefting model supporting the Pierre-Robin sequence. Teratology 2002, 65, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Clarke, L.; Hepworth, W.B.; Carey, J.C.; Seegmiller, R.E. Chondrodystrophic mice with coincidental agnathia: Evidence for the tongue obstruction hypothesis in cleft palate. Teratology 1988, 38, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Oka, K.; Oka, S.; Sasaki, T.; Ito, Y.; Bringas, P.; Nonaka, K.; Chai, Y. The role of TGF-beta signaling in regulating chondrogenesis and osteogenesis during mandibular development. Dev. Biol. 2007, 303, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yuan, G.; Zhan, Y.; Gou, X.; Chen, Y.; Yang, G. TGF-β signaling inhibits canonical BMP signaling pathway during palate development. Cell Tissue Res. 2018, 371, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Matzuk, M.M.; Kumar, T.R.; Bradley, A. Different phenotypes for mice deficient in either activins or activin receptor type II. Nature 1995, 374, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Dudas, M.; Sridurongrit, S.; Nagy, A.; Okazaki, K.; Kaartinen, V. Craniofacial defects in mice lacking BMP type I receptor Alk2 in neural crest cells. Mech. Dev. 2004, 121, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Chen, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y. Conditional deletion of Bmp2 in cranial neural crest cells recapitulates Pierre Robin sequence in mice. Cell Tissue Res. 2019, 376, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kouskoura, T.; El Fersioui, Y.; Angelini, M.; Graf, D.; Katsaros, C.; Chiquet, M. Dislocated tongue muscle attachment and cleft palate formation. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Song, Z.; Liu, C.; Iwata, J.; Gu, S.; Suzuki, A.; Sun, C.; He, W.; Shu, R.; Li, L.; Chai, Y.; et al. Mice with Tak1 deficiency in neural crest lineage exhibit cleft palate associated with abnormal tongue development. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 10440–10450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Dixon, J.; Jones, N.C.; Sandell, L.L.; Jayasinghe, S.M.; Crane, J.; Rey, J.-P.; Dixon, M.J.; Trainor, P.A. Tcof1/Treacle is required for neural crest cell formation and proliferation deficiencies that cause craniofacial abnormalities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 13403–13408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sakai, D.; Trainor, P.A. Treacher Collins syndrome: Unmasking the role of Tcof1/treacle. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2009, 41, 1229–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Dash, S.; Bhatt, S.; Falcon, K.T.; Sandell, L.L.; Trainor, P.A. Med23 Regulates Sox9 Expression during Craniofacial Development. J. Dent. Res. 2020, 1–9, Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Watanabe, H.; Kimata, K.; Line, S.; Strong, D.; Gao, L.Y.; Kozak, C.A.; Yamada, Y. Mouse cartilage matrix deficiency (cmd) caused by a 7 bp deletion in the aggrecan gene. Nat. Genet. 1994, 7, 154–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kouskoura, T.; Kozlova, A.; Alexiou, M.; Blumer, S.; Zouvelou, V.; Katsaros, C.; Chiquet, M.; Mitsiadis, T.A.; Graf, D. The etiology of cleft palate formation in BMP7-deficient mice. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, Y.; Lacerda, D.A.; Warman, M.L.; Beier, D.R.; Yoshioka, H.; Ninomiya, Y.; Oxford, J.T.; Morris, N.P.; Andrikopoulos, K.; Ramirez, F.; et al. A fibrillar collagen gene, Col11a1, is essential for skeletal morphogenesis. Cell 1995, 80, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kurihara, Y.; Kurihara, H.; Suzuki, H.; Kodama, T.; Maemura, K.; Nagai, R.; Oda, H.; Kuwaki, T.; Cao, W.H.; Kamada, N. Elevated blood pressure and craniofacial abnormalities in mice deficient in endothelin-1. Nature 1994, 368, 703–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Miettinen, P.J.; Chin, J.R.; Shum, L.; Slavkin, H.C.; Shuler, C.F.; Derynck, R.; Werb, Z. Epidermal growth factor receptor function is necessary for normal craniofacial development and palate closure. Nat. Genet. 1999, 22, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gendron-Maguire, M.; Mallo, M.; Zhang, M.; Gridley, T. Hoxa-2 mutant mice exhibit homeotic transformation of skeletal elements derived from cranial neural crest. Cell 1993, 75, 1317–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dash, S.; Bhatt, S.; Sandell, L.L.; Seidel, C.W.; Ahn, Y.; Krumlauf, R.E.; Trainor, P.A. The Mediator subunit, Med23 Is required for embryonic survival and regulation of canonical WNT signaling during cranial ganglia development. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Satokata, I.; Maas, R. Msx1 deficient mice exhibit cleft palate and abnormalities of craniofacial and tooth development. Nat. Genet. 1994, 6, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Stewart, K.; Uetani, N.; Hendriks, W.; Tremblay, M.L.; Bouchard, M. Inactivation of LAR family phosphatase genes Ptprs and Ptprf causes craniofacial malformations resembling Pierre-Robin sequence. Development 2013, 140, 3413–3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Britanova, O.; Depew, M.J.; Schwark, M.; Thomas, B.L.; Miletich, I.; Sharpe, P.; Tarabykin, V. Satb2 haploinsufficiency phenocopies 2q32-q33 deletions, whereas loss suggests a fundamental role in the coordination of jaw development. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2006, 79, 668–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Murray, S.A.; Oram, K.F.; Gridley, T. Multiple functions of Snail family genes during palate development in mice. Development 2007, 134, 1789–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Huang, H.; Yang, X.; Bao, M.; Cao, H.; Miao, X.; Zhang, X.; Gan, L.; Qiu, M.; Zhang, Z. Ablation of the Sox11 gene results in clefting of the secondary palate resembling the Pierre Robin sequence. J. Biol. Chem. 2016, 291, 7107–7118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jerome, L.A.; Papaioannou, V.E. DiGeorge syndrome phenotype in mice mutant for the T-box gene, Tbx1. Nat. Genet. 2001, 27, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Dixon, J.; Brakebusch, C.; Fässler, R.; Dixon, M.J. Increased levels of apoptosis in the prefusion neural folds underlie the craniofacial disorder, Treacher Collins syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2000, 9, 1473–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Geister, K.A.; Timms, A.E.; Beier, D.R. Optimizing genomic methods for mapping and identification of candidate variants in ENU mutagenesis screens using inbred mice. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 2018, 8, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Herron, B.J.; Lu, W.; Rao, C.; Liu, S.; Peters, H.; Bronson, R.T.; Justice, M.J.; McDonald, J.D.; Beier, D.R. Efficient generation and mapping of recessive developmental mutations using ENU mutagenesis. Nat. Genet. 2002, 30, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Schubert, J.; Jahn, H.; Berginski, M. Experimental aspects of the pathogenesis of Robin sequence. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 2005, 42, 372–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Wolf, Z.T.; Leslie, E.J.; Arzi, B.; Jayashankar, K.; Karmi, N.; Jia, Z.; Rowland, D.J.; Young, A.; Safra, N.; Sliskovic, S.; et al. A LINE-1 insertion in DLX6 is responsible for cleft palate and mandibular abnormalities in a canine model of Pierre Robin sequence. PLoS Genet. 2014, 10, e1004257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Yuan, Q.; Chiquet, B.T.; Devault, L.; Warman, M.L.; Nakamura, Y.; Swindell, E.C.; Hecht, J.T. Craniofacial abnormalities result from knock down of nonsyndromic clefting gene, crispld2, in zebrafish. Genesis 2012, 50, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ghassibe-Sabbagh, M.; Desmyter, L.; Langenberg, T.; Claes, F.; Boute, O.; Bayet, B.; Pellerin, P.; Hermans, K.; Backx, L.; Mansilla, M.A.; et al. FAF1, a gene that is disrupted in cleft palate and has conserved function in zebrafish. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2011, 88, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Noack Watt, K.E.; Achilleos, A.; Neben, C.L.; Merrill, A.E.; Trainor, P.A. The roles of RNA polymerase I and III subunits Pozlr1c and Polr1d in craniofacial development and in zebrafish models of Treacher Collins syndrome. PLoS Genet. 2016, 12, e1006187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lau, M.C.C.; Kwong, E.M.L.; Lai, K.P.; Li, J.-W.; Ho, J.C.H.; Chan, T.-F.; Wong, C.K.C.; Jiang, Y.-J.; Tse, W.K.F. Pathogenesis of POLR1C-dependent Type 3 Treacher Collins Syndrome revealed by a zebrafish model. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016, 1862, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Weiner, A.M.J.; Scampoli, N.L.; Calcaterra, N.B. Fishing the molecular bases of Treacher Collins syndrome. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The diagnostic features and categories of Pierre Robin syndrome/sequence/anomalad/complex (PR). (A) PR is characterized by a triad of mandibular dysmorphology (micrognathia or retrognathia), glossoptosis, and airway obstruction. (B) A U-shaped cleft palate is commonly present in patients with PR, a cleft morphology distinct from the more common V-shaped cleft palate. (C) Three diagnostic categories based on whether the PR triad and/or cleft palate appear in isolation or with other anomalies. In syndromic PR, the triad is present as part of a syndrome, appearing coincidentally with Stickler, 22q11.2 deletion, and Treacher Collins syndromes, and with campomelic dysplasia. In PR-Plus, additional congenital abnormalities accompany the PR triad, but a known syndrome is not indicated. In isolated PR, the triad is the only clinical feature.
Figure 1. The diagnostic features and categories of Pierre Robin syndrome/sequence/anomalad/complex (PR). (A) PR is characterized by a triad of mandibular dysmorphology (micrognathia or retrognathia), glossoptosis, and airway obstruction. (B) A U-shaped cleft palate is commonly present in patients with PR, a cleft morphology distinct from the more common V-shaped cleft palate. (C) Three diagnostic categories based on whether the PR triad and/or cleft palate appear in isolation or with other anomalies. In syndromic PR, the triad is present as part of a syndrome, appearing coincidentally with Stickler, 22q11.2 deletion, and Treacher Collins syndromes, and with campomelic dysplasia. In PR-Plus, additional congenital abnormalities accompany the PR triad, but a known syndrome is not indicated. In isolated PR, the triad is the only clinical feature.
Jdb 08 00030 g001
Figure 2. Typical palatogenesis in the murine embryo. (A) Three-dimensional (3D) volume-rendering of a phosphotungstic acid (PTA)-enhanced micro-computed tomography (µCT) image of an E13.5 embryo. The blue line indicates the slice plane for all stages. (B) Slice image of typical morphology at E13.5, depicting vertical palatal shelves. (C) Slice image of typical morphology at E14.5, depicting abutting palatal shelves beginning fusion at the midline. (D) Slice of typical morphology at E15.5, depicting fully fused palatal shelves at the midline. The red arrowhead indicates the location of palatal shelves, and T indicates the tongue. Scale bars are 500 µm. Specimens were stained with phosphotungstic acid, as described [57]. µCT scans of PTA stained specimens were acquired by the Center for Quantitative Imaging at The Pennsylvania State University using the 180 kv nanofocus tube of the General Electric v|tom|x L300 nano/microCT system. Image data were reconstructed on a 2024 × 2024 pixel grid as a 32 bit volume, but were reoriented to anatomical planes and reduced to 16 bit volume using Dragonfly 2020.1 (Object Research Systems (ORS) Inc., Montreal, Canada) for image analysis using Avizo 2019.3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Scan resolution: 5.5 µm.
Figure 2. Typical palatogenesis in the murine embryo. (A) Three-dimensional (3D) volume-rendering of a phosphotungstic acid (PTA)-enhanced micro-computed tomography (µCT) image of an E13.5 embryo. The blue line indicates the slice plane for all stages. (B) Slice image of typical morphology at E13.5, depicting vertical palatal shelves. (C) Slice image of typical morphology at E14.5, depicting abutting palatal shelves beginning fusion at the midline. (D) Slice of typical morphology at E15.5, depicting fully fused palatal shelves at the midline. The red arrowhead indicates the location of palatal shelves, and T indicates the tongue. Scale bars are 500 µm. Specimens were stained with phosphotungstic acid, as described [57]. µCT scans of PTA stained specimens were acquired by the Center for Quantitative Imaging at The Pennsylvania State University using the 180 kv nanofocus tube of the General Electric v|tom|x L300 nano/microCT system. Image data were reconstructed on a 2024 × 2024 pixel grid as a 32 bit volume, but were reoriented to anatomical planes and reduced to 16 bit volume using Dragonfly 2020.1 (Object Research Systems (ORS) Inc., Montreal, Canada) for image analysis using Avizo 2019.3 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Scan resolution: 5.5 µm.
Jdb 08 00030 g002
Figure 3. Pierre Robin phenotype of mandible, tongue, and cleft palate in the Prdm16cGT/cGT embryos visualized by PTA-enhanced µCT. (A) Three-dimensional volume rendering of a PTA-enhanced µCT image of an E15.5 Prdm16+/+ mouse showing craniofacial morphology of a typically developing embryo. (B) Slice image of typical morphology, plane of section indicated by the green line in (A,C). Same image as (B), highlighting critical tissues of the PR-CP phenotype, namely, the nasal capsule and Meckel’s cartilage (aqua), nasal airways (blue), palatal shelves (red), tongue (pink), and mandible (tan). (D) 3D volume rendering of a PTA-enhanced Prdm16cGT/cGT mouse showing the PR-CP phenotype. (E) Slice image of PR-CP morphology, plane of section indicated by the green line in (D,F). Same image as (E), highlighting critical tissues of the PR-CP phenotype, namely, the nasal capsule and Meckel’s cartilage (aqua), nasal airways (blue), palatal shelves (red), tongue (pink), and mandible (tan). (A,D) Length of mandible shown by red bar. Scale bars in (A,D) are 1 mm. Scale bars in (B,C,E,F) are 500 µm. Imaging processing as described for Figure 2.
Figure 3. Pierre Robin phenotype of mandible, tongue, and cleft palate in the Prdm16cGT/cGT embryos visualized by PTA-enhanced µCT. (A) Three-dimensional volume rendering of a PTA-enhanced µCT image of an E15.5 Prdm16+/+ mouse showing craniofacial morphology of a typically developing embryo. (B) Slice image of typical morphology, plane of section indicated by the green line in (A,C). Same image as (B), highlighting critical tissues of the PR-CP phenotype, namely, the nasal capsule and Meckel’s cartilage (aqua), nasal airways (blue), palatal shelves (red), tongue (pink), and mandible (tan). (D) 3D volume rendering of a PTA-enhanced Prdm16cGT/cGT mouse showing the PR-CP phenotype. (E) Slice image of PR-CP morphology, plane of section indicated by the green line in (D,F). Same image as (E), highlighting critical tissues of the PR-CP phenotype, namely, the nasal capsule and Meckel’s cartilage (aqua), nasal airways (blue), palatal shelves (red), tongue (pink), and mandible (tan). (A,D) Length of mandible shown by red bar. Scale bars in (A,D) are 1 mm. Scale bars in (B,C,E,F) are 500 µm. Imaging processing as described for Figure 2.
Jdb 08 00030 g003
Table 1. Select genes associated with human PR phenotypes.
Table 1. Select genes associated with human PR phenotypes.
Gene SymbolGene NameSyndrome(s)MIM Phenotype Number
AMER1Apc membrane recruitment protein 1Osteopathia striata with cranial sclerosis300373
AP3D1Adaptor related protein complex 3 subunit delta 1Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome 10617050
BMP2Bone morphogenetic protein 2Short stature, facial dysmorphism, and skeletal anomalies with or without cardiac anomalies617877
COG1Component of oligomeric golgi complex 1Congenital disorder of glycosylation, type IIg611209
COL11A1Collagen, type XI, alpha-1Stickler syndrome, type II; Marshall syndrome604841; 154780
COL11A2Collagen, type XI, alpha-2Otospondylomegaepiphyseal dysplasia, autosomal dominant; Otospondylomegaepiphyseal dysplasia, autosomal recessive184840; 215150
COL2A1Collagen, type II, alpha-1Stickler syndrome, type I108300
DHODHDihydroorotate dehydrogenaseMiller syndrome263750
EDN1Endothelin 1Auriculocondylar syndrome 3615706
EFTUD2Elongation factor Tu guanosine triphosphate binding domain containing 2Mandibulofacial dysostosis, Guion–Almeida type610536
EIF4A3Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4a3Robin sequence with cleft mandible and limb anomalies268305
MAP3K7Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase 7Frontometaphyseal dysplasia 2617137
MYMKMyomaker, myoblast fusion factorCarey–Fineman–Ziter syndrome254940
PDHA1Pyruvate dehydrogenase E1 subunit alpha 1Pyruvate dehydrogenase E1-alpha deficiency312170
PGAP3Post-glycophosphatidylinositol attachment to proteins phospholipase 3Hyperphosphatasia with mental retardation syndrome 4615716
PGM1Phosphoglucomutase 1Congenital disorder of glycosylation, type It614921
PIGAPhosphatidylinositol glycan anchor biosynthesis class AMultiple congenital anomalies–hypotonia–seizures syndrome 2300868
POLR1CRNA polymerase I and III subunit CTreacher Collins syndrome 3248390
POLR1DRNA polymerase I and III subunit DTreacher Collins syndrome 2613717
RBM10RNA-binding motif protein 10TARP syndrome311900
SATB2Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2Glass syndrome612313
SLC10A7Solute carrier family 10 member 7Short stature, amelogenesis imperfecta, and skeletal dysplasia with scoliosis618363
SLC26A2Solute carrier family 26 member 2Diastrophic dysplasia222600
SNRPBSmall nuclear ribonucleoprotein polypeptides B and B1Cerebrocostomandibular syndrome117650
SOX9Sry-box 9Campomelic dysplasia114290
SF3B4Splicing factor 3b subunit 4Nager syndrome154400
TBX1T-box transcription factor 1Velocardiofacial syndrome192430
TCOF1Treacle ribosome biogenesis factor 1Treacher Collins syndrome 1154500
TGDSThymidine diphosphate-glucose 4,6-dehydrataseCatel–Manzke syndrome616145
Table 2. Select animal models for PR phenotypes.
Table 2. Select animal models for PR phenotypes.
Animal ModelSpeciesGeneMutationPhenotypesReferences
JawTonguePalateOthers
Acancmd/cmdMouseAcanIntragenic deletion in AcanMicrognathia or agnathiaUnderdevelopedCleft palateShort-limbed chondrodystrophy[80,91]
Acvr2atm1ZukMouseAcvr2aAcvr2a nullMicrognathia, defects in Meckel′s cartilageNone reportedCleft palateNone reported[83]
Acvr1fl/fl; Wnt1-CreMouseAcvr1Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Acvr1MicrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateEnlarged frontal fontanels, incomplete zygomatic arches, squamosal bones lack the retrotympanic process; smaller temporal squama[84]
Bmp2fl/fl; Wnt1-Cre;R26RmTmGMouseBmp2Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Bmp2MicrognathiaMalformed tongueCleft palateA reduced size of craniofacial bones[85]
Bmp7Δ/ΔMouseBmp7Bmp7 nullImpaired Meckel’s cartilage development; lack of a mandibular symphysis and mandibular mental spine formationMisplaced origin of genioglossus muscleCleft palateAlteration of oral cavity morphology[86,92]
Col11a1cho/choMouseCol11a1Intragenic deletion in Col11a1Micrognathia or agnathiaUnderdevelopedCleft palateShort-limbed chondrodystrophy[80,93]
Col2a1DmmMouseCol2a1Disproportionate micromelia (Dmm) semi-dominant mutationMandibular growth retardation, coupled with relative macroglossia in E14Relative tongue size to Meckel’s cartilage length significantly greater at E14.75 compared to controlCleft palateMild dwarfism three weeks after birth in heterozygotes[79]
Edn1−/−MouseEdn1Edn1 nullShort and deformed mandibular bonesMost of tongue missingCleft palateThin anterior neck and hypoplastic auricles, aberrant zygomatic andtemporal bones, absent auditory ossicles and tympanic ring[74,94]
Egfr−/−MouseEgfrTargeted intragenic deletion in EgfrUnder-developed lower jawNone reportedCleft palateNarrow, elongated snouts[95]
Erk2fl/fl; Wnt1-CreMouseErk2Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Erk2Micrognathia and mandibular asymmetryMalformed tongueCleft palate, failed palate elevationNone reported[62]
pMes-Fgf10; Wnt1-CreMouseFgf10Wnt1-Cre conditional transgene of Fgf10None reportedHeightened tongueFailed palate elevationNone reported[87]
Hoxa2D1MouseHoxa2Hoxa2 nullDuplicated Meckel′s cartilageNone reportedCleft palateExternal ear defects, duplication of the ossification centers of the bones of the middle ear[96]
Med23fl/fl; Wnt1-CreMouseMed23Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Med23Micrognathia, hypoplastic Meckel’s cartilageGlossoptosisCleft palateCleidocranial dysplasia: Agenesis of nasal cartilage and bones, abnormal development of the tympanic ring and skull bones[90,97]
Msx1−/−MouseMsx1Msx1 nullShortened mandible and maxillaNone reportedCleft palateFailure of tooth induction; Abnormalities of the nasal, frontal and parietal bones, and of the malleus in the middle ear; cyanosis[98]
Prdm16cGTMousePrdm16Prdm16 nullMicrognathia, smaller Meckel′s cartilageAbnormal positioning and morphology of the tongueCleft palateRespiratory failure and abdominal distention, reduced ossification of the frontal and parietal bones, nasal cartilage appears shortened, abnormal retinal folds; hypoplasia of choroid plexi, salivary glands, lungs, cardiac ventricules[39]
Prdm16csp1MousePrdm16Intronic splice mutation in Prdm16Micrognathia, smaller Meckel′s cartilageAbnormal positioning and morphology of the tongueCleft palateRespiratory failure and abdominal distention, reduced ossification of the frontal and parietal bones, nasal cartilage appears shortened, abnormal retinal folds; hypoplasia of choroid plexi, salivary glands, lungs, cardiac ventricules[38]
Ptprs−/−; Ptprf−/−MousePtprs, PtprfPtprs;Ptprf double-knockoutMicrognathiaMicroglossia/glossoptosisCleft palateDysmorphic cranial bone and cartilage[99]
Satb2tm1(cre)VitMouseSatb2Satb2 nullMicrognathiaMicroglossiaCleft palateMicrocephaly, nasocapsular and premaxillary hypoplasia; fully penetrant incisor adontia[100]
Snai1/2-dkoMouseSnai1/Snai2Neural-crest-specific Snai1 deletion on a Snai2−/− genetic back-groundMicrognathia, fused mandible and a failure of Meckel′s cartilage to extend the mandibleNone reportedCleft palateEnlarged parietal foramen in skull vault[101]
Sox9+/−MouseSox9Heterozygous knockout of Sox9Micrognathia Bifurcated tongueCleft palateHypoplasia of cartilaginous skeletal elements[77]
Sox9fl/+; Wnt1-CreMouseSox9Heterozygous Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Sox9MicrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateMildly hypoplastic craniofacial skeleton[78]
Sox9fl/+; Wnt1-Cre2MouseSox9Heterozygous Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Sox9MicrognathiaNone reportedCleft palate in 50% of mutant embryosNone reported[41]
Sox9 mEC1.45del/delMouseSox9Knockout of Sox9 enhancer mEC1.45Altered mandibular morphologyNone reportedNone reportedReduction in weight gain[41]
Sox11fl/fl; EIIa-CreMouseSox11Sox11 nullMicrognathiaDisplaced tongue positionCleft palate with retardation to palatal shelf elevationNone reported[102]
Tak1fl/fl; Wnt1-CreMouseTak1Wnt1-Cre conditional knockout of Tak1MicrognathiaMalformed tongueCleft palateHypoplastic calvarial bones[87]
Tbx1−/−MouseTbx1Tbx1 nullMicrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateHypoplasia of the thymus and parathyroid glands, cardiac outflow tract abnormalities, abnormal facial structures, abnormal vertebrae[103]
Tcof1+/−MouseTcof1Heterozygous knockout of Tcof1Micrognathia/retrognathia None reportedCleft palateAgenesis of the nasal passages, abnormal maxilla, exencephaly, anophthalmia[88,104]
Tgdsbub/TgdsbubMouseTgdsN-ethyl-N-nitrosourea-induced mutationMicrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateNone reported[105]
hpmd-line 171aMouseUnknownN-ethyl-N-nitrosou-rea-induced mutationHypoplastic mandibleNone reportedCleft palateSplit in xyphoid process, malformation of first brachial arch derivatives[76,106]
A/WySnMouseUnknownUnknownRetrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateNone reported[107]
CP1 NSDTRDogDLX6A long interspersed nuclear element-1 insertion in DLX6Relative micrognathiaNone reportedCleft palateNone reported[108]
crispld2KDZebrafishcrispld2Morpholino knockdown of crispld2Loss of lower jaw structuresNone reportedMalformations of the palateTruncated body, shortened and curved tail with cardiac edema, clefting of the ethmoid plate[109]
faf1KDZebrafishfaf1Morpholino knockdown of faf1Under-developed jawNone reportedNone reportedSmaller head; “open-mouth” phenotype[110]
polr1c−/−Zebrafishpolr1cpolr1c knockout (polr1chi1124Tg) generated by insertion mutagenesisHypoplastic mandibleNone reportedCleft palate, smaller ethmoid plateSmaller heads, microphthalmia, pericardial edema[111,112]
polr1d−/−Zebrafishpolr1dpolr1d knockout (polr1dhi2393Tg) generated by insertion mutagenesisHypoplastic mandibleNone reportedSmaller ethmoid plateSmaller heads, microphthalmia, pericardial edema[111]
tcof1KDZebrafishtcof1Morpholino knockdown of tcof1Hypoplastic mandibleNone reportedSmaller and dysmorphic ethmoid plateCranioskeletal hypoplasia in the frontal, premaxillary, and maxillary elements[113]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop