Evidence for genetic homogeneity of Setleis' syndrome and focal facial dermal dysplasia
Abstract
A healthy 14-month-old boy had multiple, circular, scar-like depressions on both temples, which had been present since birth. Delivery had been normal, and had not required the use of forceps or other instruments. His mother and one sister had similar, but less obvious, lesions on the temples. The three affected family members had similar facial features, with laterally deficient eyebrows, and a prominent upper lip with down-turned mouth. Additional features in the baby were sparse lower eyelashes, medial epicanthal folds, and skin dimpling on one side of the chin. Focal facial dermal dysplasia (FFDD) denotes a condition in which there are bitemporal, round, scar-like lesions. It is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait with variable penetrance and expressivity, and there are no associated features. Setleis' syndrome is recessively inherited, and is characterized by similar bitemporal defects associated with other dysmorphic features, including deficient eyelashes and a prominent upper lip. This report of dominantly inherited bitemporal dermal defects with characteristic facies supports the idea that FFDD and Setleis' syndrome are a single disorder.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Setleis and Brauer forms of focal facial dermal dysplasia may be the same entity inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expressivity.
“Ward and Moss [1994] suggested and Kaplan et al. [1995] concluded that the Setleis (OMIM 227260) and Brauer (OMIM 136500) forms of focal facial dermal dysplasia may be the same entity inherited in an AD inheritance pattern with variable expressivity [Kaplan et al., 1995;Masuno et al., 1995].Irvine [2005] also suggests this possibility and we agree with this opinion.”
From Ectodermal dysplasias: Clinical and molecular review (2009) · cites this paper as Ward and Moss, 1994
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ectodermal dysplasias: Clinical and molecular review
Visinoni, Á. F., Lisboa‐Costa, T., Pagnan, N. A. B., & Chautard‐Freire‐Maia, E. A. (2009) · American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32864 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
- Authors
- WARD, K. A., & MOSS, C.
- Affiliations
- Birmingham Children's Hospital (GB)
- ORCID
- MOSS, C.
- Venue
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994-05
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 645-649
- ISSN
- 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2133
- OpenAlex
- W2009680526
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and rare skin diseases.
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Keywords
- autosomal dominant inheritance, genetic homogeneity, facial dysmorphism, epicanthal folds, variable penetrance
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Child, Ectodermal Dysplasia, Eyebrows, Eyelashes, Facial Dermatoses, Female, Humans, Infant, Lip, Male, Phenotype, Syndrome
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