Environmental and Genetic Factors Associated with Congenital Microtia: A Case-Control Study in Jiangsu, China, 2004 to 2007
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to filter out the environmental and genetic risk factors in microtia patients and to demonstrate the relationship between environmental and inherited factors in congenital microtia. METHODS: A case-control study was carried out in 121 congenital microtia patients and 152 controls. Epidemiologic data related to environmental exposure were gathered through personal interviews with the target group. Polymerase chain reaction and DNA sequence analysis were performed to analyze the Gsc gene and BMP5 gene mutation in the case and control groups. The logistic regression model was used to analyze environmental and genetic risk factors and their relationships to microtia. RESULTS: The main risk factors were disease during pregnancy (odds ratio, 5.890; 95 percent CI, 2.358 to 14.715), toxicity exposure during pregnancy (odds ratio, 4.764; 95 percent CI, 1.659 to 13.680), and resident area (odds ratio, 5.114; 95 percent CI, 2.086 to 12.535). The synthetic attributable risks amount to 0.7185. As to the Gsc gene, six of these patients had a same-sense mutation C-->T on 197 bp in exon 2; a missense mutation on A-->G 125 bp in exon 3 occurred in two cases; and amino acid changes from glutamic acid to glutamine. A heterozygosity on 196 TTT-->ACA resulting in missense mutation was detected in four patients, causing the amino acid to change from phenylalanine to threonine in BMP5 maternal peptide gene. However, no mutations were detected in the control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that both environmental and genetic factors contribute to congenital microtia. The Gsc gene and the BMP5 maternal peptide gene may act as the predisposing genes of microtia. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between the risk factors and microtia.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a case-control study of congenital microtia, adverse maternal health was among the main risk factors, specifically maternal disease during pregnancy (OR 5.89, 95% CI 2.36-14.72), maternal toxicity exposure during pregnancy (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.66-13.68), and living near air-pollution industries (OR 7.00, 95% CI 2.09-23.47).
“The authors concluded that adverse maternal health was among the main risk factors for congenital microtia, specifically maternal disease during pregnancy (OR 5.89, 95% CI 2.36-14.72), maternal toxicity exposure during pregnancy (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.66-13.68), and resident area, such as living near industries associated with air pollution (OR 7.00, 95% CI 2.09-23.47).16”
From Observational studies: Cohort and case-control studies (2010) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Estimating the population attributable risk for multiple risk factors using case-control data.
BRUZZI, P., GREEN, S. B., BYAR, D. P., BRINTON, L. A., & SCHAIRER, C. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114174 · Cited by 1,214 · see citing works
Microtia in Finland: Comparison of characteristics in different populations
Suutarla, S., Rautio, J., Ritvanen, A., Ala-Mello, S., Jero, J., & Klockars, T. (2007) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.04.020 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Observational studies: Cohort and case-control studies
Song, J. W., & Chung, K. C. (2010) · Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181f44abc · Cited by 948 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Q.-G., Zhang, J., Yu, P., & Shen, H.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- ORCID
- Zhang, Jiao
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1157-1164
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2000265174
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
- Keywords
- congenital microtia, environmental risk factors, genetic risk factors, prenatal exposure, pregnancy complications, missense mutations, heterozygosity, congenital malformations, Jiangsu Province
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Adolescent, Child, China, Ear, External, Environment, Female, Humans, Male, Risk Factors, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review