Cited by 297Craniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsGenomics and Rare Diseasesdental development and anomalies

Prevalence and Complications of Single-Gene and Chromosomal Disorders in Craniosynostosis

Open access
Wilkie, Andrew O. M., Byren, Jo C., Hurst, Jane A., Jayamohan, Jayaratnam, Johnson, David, Knight, Samantha J. L., Lester, Tracy, Richards, Peter G. +2 more·2010·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We describe the first cohort-based analysis of the impact of genetic disorders in craniosynostosis. We aimed to refine the understanding of prognoses and pathogenesis and to provide rational criteria for clinical genetic testing. METHODS: We undertook targeted molecular genetic and cytogenetic testing for 326 children who required surgery because of craniosynostosis, were born in 1993–2002, presented to a single craniofacial unit, and were monitored until the end of 2007. RESULTS: Eighty-four children (and 64 relatives) had pathologic genetic alterations (86% single-gene mutations and 14% chromosomal abnormalities). The FGFR3 P250R mutation was the single largest contributor (24%) to the genetic group. Genetic diagnoses accounted for 21% of all craniosynostosis cases and were associated with increased rates of many complications. Children with an initial clinical diagnosis of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis were more likely to have a causative mutation if the synostoses were unicoronal or bicoronal (10 of 48 cases) than if they were sagittal or metopic (0 of 55 cases; P = .0003). Repeat craniofacial surgery was required for 58% of children with single-gene mutations but only 17% of those with chromosomal abnormalities (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical genetic assessment is critical for the treatment of children with craniosynostosis. Genetic testing of nonsyndromic cases (at least for FGFR3 P250R and FGFR2 exons IIIa/c) should be targeted to patients with coronal or multisuture synostoses. Single-gene disorders that disrupt physiologic signaling in the cranial sutures often require reoperation, whereas chromosomal abnormalities follow a more-indolent course, which suggests a different, secondary origin of the associated craniosynostosis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2009-3491

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Wilkie et al. (2010) found that 21% of non-syndromic craniosynostosis patients had a genetic cause, mainly single-gene mutations (86%) and fewer chromosomal abnormalities (14%), with FGFR3 P250R being the most common.

    “Results showed that 21% of all non-syndromic had a genetic cause, mainly single-gene mutations (86%) and fewer chromosomal abnormalities (14%) with the FGFR3 P250R mutation being the most common.”

    From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results report that 21% of all children with craniosynostosis had a proven genetic cause; the 86% single-gene and 14% chromosomal breakdown also describes genetic cases overall. For cases initially classified as non-syndromic, the Results instead report single-gene mutations in 11/204 (5.4%), with FGFR3 P250R the most common individual mutation. The claim incorrectly applies the overall percentages to non-syndromic patients. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wilkie et al. found that sagittal craniosynostosis showed minimal genetic links, suggesting non-genetic factors play a greater role.

    “In contrast, sagittal craniosynostosis showed minimal genetic links, with only a small percentage linked to single-gene mutations and even fewer chromosomal abnormalities.”

    From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results (page unavailable) report negative molecular tests in all 27 tested children with non-syndromic sagittal synostosis, and no clinically significant chromosome abnormalities among tested non-syndromic children, including 14 with sagittal synostosis. These findings support a low yield for the genetic changes examined, but do not establish that sagittal craniosynostosis generally has minimal genetic links or that non-genetic factors play a greater role. The Results also report chromosome abnormalities involving midline sutures, so the finding needs its non-syndromic qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Unlike coronal synostosis, which has stronger genetic associations, sagittal cases likely involve environmental factors.

    “Unlike coronal synostosis, which has stronger genetic associations, sagittal cases likely involve environmental factors.”

    From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results (Indications for Cytogenetic and Molecular Genetic Testing; page unavailable) report a substantially higher single-gene mutation yield in non-syndromic coronal than sagittal synostosis. The paper also describes mechanical contributions to craniosynostosis generally, but does not specifically attribute sagittal cases to environmental factors. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wilkie et al. showed that sagittal craniosynostosis has minimal genetic links, reducing recurrence risk but complicating early diagnosis.

    “Wilkie et al. showed that sagittal craniosynostosis has minimal genetic links, reducing recurrence risk but complicating early diagnosis.”

    From Developments in diagnostic and surgical techniques in children with sagittal suture craniosynostosis: a systematic review spanning the last 30 years (2025) · cites this paper as [30]

    In Results (page unavailable), all 27 tested children with non-syndromic sagittal synostosis had negative molecular genetic tests; the Discussion says routine testing is not supported for that group. The paper does not show that this finding reduces recurrence risk or complicates early diagnosis. Its Conclusions instead say genetic assessment helps estimate recurrence risks generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the authors' 10-year prospective craniosynostosis cohort, a genetic diagnosis was made in 21% of cases.

    “In a recent analysis of a 10-year prospective cohort of craniosynostosis presenting to our unit, a genetic diagnosis was achieved in 21% of cases, comprising 86% single gene disorders and 15% chromosome abnormalities (one patient had both).7”

    From Craniosynostosis (2011) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Abstract (Results) says genetic diagnoses accounted for 21% of craniosynostosis, but the Results specify that this figure is 46 of 215 children born in 1998–2002. Across the full cohort, 84 of 326 children were classified as having a proven genetic cause, so 21% is not the proportion of all cohort cases. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkie, A. O. M., Byren, J. C., Hurst, J. A., Jayamohan, J., Johnson, D., Knight, S. J. L., Lester, T., Richards, P. G., Twigg, S. R. F., & Wall, S. A.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Department of Clinical Genetics and
  • Centre for Human Genetics (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine (GB)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2010-08-01
Volume
126
Issue
2
Pages
e391-e400
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W1989045574
Cited by
297
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (078666, 075491)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › dental development and anomalies
Keywords
craniosynostosis, single-gene mutations, chromosomal abnormalities, genetic testing, nonsyndromic craniosynostosis, coronal synostosis, sagittal synostosis, metopic synostosis, pathogenesis
MeSH terms
Chromosome Aberrations, Craniosynostoses, Exons, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Molecular Biology, Signal Transduction, Prevalence, Point Mutation, Neurosurgical Procedures, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Cytogenetic Analysis, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Receptor, Fibroblast Growth Factor, Type 3

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