Unraveling the Genetics of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: An Ongoing Challenge

Abstract

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is a congenital structural anomaly in which the diaphragm has not developed properly. It may occur either as an isolated anomaly or with additional anomalies. It is thought to be a multifactorial disease in which genetic factors could either substantially contribute to or directly result in the developmental defect. Patients with aneuploidies, pathogenic variants or de novo Copy Number Variations (CNVs) impacting specific genes and loci develop CDH typically in the form of a monogenetic syndrome. These patients often have other associated anatomical malformations. In patients without a known monogenetic syndrome, an increased genetic burden of de novo coding variants contributes to disease development. In early years, genetic evaluation was based on karyotyping and SNP-array. Today, genomes are commonly analyzed with next generation sequencing (NGS) based approaches. While more potential pathogenic variants are being detected, analysis of the data presents a bottleneck—largely due to the lack of full appreciation of the functional consequence and/or relevance of the detected variant. The exact heritability of CDH is still unknown. Damaging de novo alterations are associated with the more severe and complex phenotypes and worse clinical outcome. Phenotypic, genetic—and likely mechanistic—variability hampers individualpatient diagnosis, short and long-term morbidity prediction and subsequent care strategies. Detailed phenotyping, clinical follow-up at regular intervals and detailed registries are needed to find associations between long-term morbidity, genetic alterations, and clinical parameters. Since CDH is a relatively rare disorder with only a few recurrent changes large cohorts of patients are needed to identify genetic associations. Retrospective whole genome sequencing of historical patient cohorts using will yield valuable data from which today's patients and parents will profit Trio whole genome sequencing has an excellent potential for future re-analysis and data-sharing increasing the chance to provide a genetic diagnosis and predict clinical prognosis. In this review, we explore the pitfalls and challenges in the analysis and interpretation of genetic information, present what is currently known and what still needs further study, and propose strategies to reap the benefits of genetic screening.

Introduction

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) [OMIM: 142340] has an estimated incidence of 1 in 1,750–5,880 live births (1–3) and is characterized by a defect of the diaphragm. This defect allows herniation of the abdominal organs into the thorax. CDH can be detected prenatally during first or second trimester ultrasounds in 50–68% of CDH pregnancies (4–7). Patients are often referred to a center of expertise with a specialized multidisciplinary team for prenatal assessment, prognostic and genetic counseling and care. CDH prevalence has slightly increased in the past years (3). Still, the mortality rates have decreased, probably due to better treatment strategies (8), although this decline is more pronounced in wealthier coutnries than in developing countries (9).

Most of what we know of human diaphragm development is based on descriptive and functional analyses of animal models. The diaphragm muscle develops initially from transient structures located at the top of the liver: the septum transversum, the pleuroperitoneal folds, the posthepatic mesenchymal plate, and the somites. Myoblast progenitors and other mesenchymal cells (10) in the developing pleuroperitoneal folds expand and migrate to the posthepatic mesenchymal plate. Vice versa, cells from the posthepatic mesenchymal plate migrate toward the pleuroperitoneal folds. Finally, the pleuroperitoneal folds fuse with the posthepatic mesenchymal plate between embryonic day (E) E12.5 and E13.5 (10, 11). When complete, this membrane separates the thoracic and abdominal cavity (E14.5). In CDH, this process is disrupted and the diaphragm will not fully close (12, 13). A more detailed description of diaphragm and CDH development can be found elsewhere in this issue (14).

Patients with aneuploidies, pathogenic single nucleotide variants, de novo Copy Number Variations (CNVs) (15–18) develop CDH, often in the form of a monogenetic syndrome and in combination with other anatomical malformations (2, 19). Here, we discuss what is currently known and inventoried what is necessary to provide optimal genetic counseling for the individual patients and their parents. We evaluate genetic outcome of a CDH cohort in the Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and propose strategies to reap the benefits of genetic screening.

CDH Has Subtypes Based on Defect Size, Type and Anatomical Location

CDH is the most severe diaphragm defects compared to other, less frequent defects such as incomplete muscularization of the diaphragm (diaphragmatic eventration) or the presence of just a thin layer of non-muscular tissue (sac hernia). Subtypes are identified by the size and anatomical location of the herniation. Most prevalent are Bochdalek hernias, which are mostly left-sided (20). Prenatal predictors for survival include associated malformations (21), defect size (7), lung volume (22), liver herniation (23), stomach position (24, 25), and lung-to-head ratio (26, 27). Other predictors include birth weight, Apgar score, respiratory parameters, cardiac anomalies, chromosomal changes, and pulmonary hypertension (28–30).

The Relation of Defect Size and Genetic Alterations

Larger diaphragms defects are associated with a higher mortality rate, the prevalence of associated anatomical malformations as well as the number of associated anatomical malformations (21). We hypothesized that large continuous locus or gene changes (e.g., 15q26 loss, 17q12 loss; see Table 1) can modify multiple genes involved in diaphragm formation, and impact the development of the embryo in general. In contrast, small deletions or Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) as seen in for instance FBN1, TGFB3, and SLC2A10 (see Table 2) will be associated with smaller defects. Therefore, we evaluated whether the size of the defect was associated with the finding of “a pathogenic genomic variant” and/or “a genetic syndrome.” We compared the genetic test results and the defect size classification (n = 336). Statistical analysis did not indicate associations of the defect size with an different, uncommon genetic test result. What we did observed was that patients with no or little follow-up revealed associations (P < 0.001). In this category patients are present lacking a registered defect size or registered genetic test. This category includes patients who have not been subjected to an intervention due to intrauterine fetal demise or termination of pregnancy. In the Netherlands, pregnancies in which severe genetic anomalies (e.g., Edwards syndrome, Patau syndrome) or structural malformations are observed that are incompatible with life, are often terminated. The CDH defect size is not determined in those cases (see Table 1). Therefore, a complete genetic and phenotypic evaluation and subsequent association analysis in this particular group is difficult and often not performed.

Isolated CDH and Complex CDH

CDH may present as an isolated anomaly (isolated-CDH) or patients can have one or more additional anomalies (CDH-complex) (1, 31). Anomalies can be found in all body sites; cardiac anomalies, anomalies of the urogenital system, limb malformations, nervous system anomalies, orofacial clefts, and gastrointestinal anomalies including intestinal atresia (3, 32). Zaiss et al. described syndromic clinical features such as hypertelorism not assigned to a specific syndrome in 7.7% of studied patients (32). Pathogenic genetic alterations—both in complex and in isolated CDH—are associated with a worse prognosis (33). Moreover, de novo pathogenic alterations are seen more often in complex CDH (34–36). Phenotypical complex patients could be more likely to receive a genetic test. In our cohort, genetic test results were described for patients with associated anomalies (n = 207) and for patients without associated anomalies (n = 311). Thus, there was not a priory bias in this respect (p = 0.923). Twenty patients with associated anomalies had pathogenic genetic alterations vs. one with isolated CDH (P < 0.001). Main outcome parameters of the Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands CDH cohort are depicted in Tables 3, 4. Full cohort descriptions and analysis methods are described in Supplementary Tables S1, S2.

Comparing features of isolated CDH and complex CDH is difficult, depending on how accurately these two groups can be distinguished. Not all patients receive the same phenotypical evaluation and registration is sometimes incomplete. For instance, not all associated anatomical malformations are detectable with ultrasound. Nevertheless, increased resolution of prenatal ultrasound over time has improved the detection of associated anatomical malformations. Neurological symptoms could develop at later age and are not noticeable during the first months or years of development. Furthermore, not all symptoms observed during often organ specific evaluations of medical subspecialities. For instance, postnatal monitoring is essential to detect any associated neurological or ophthalmological symptoms. CDH registries would benefit from regular re-evaluation of these outcome measures. In short, there is a level of uncertainty in registries regarding which patients have no associated anomalies, have no associated anomalies detected, or have no associated anomalies registered.

Genetic Associations and Co-morbidity

Long-term complications in children born with CDH include chronic lung disease, feeding difficulties, gastro-esophageal reflux, growth failure, scoliosis, chest asymmetry, neurodevelopmental delay, and sensorineural hearing loss (37, 38). These co-morbidities can be either a direct or indirect consequence of the CDH or be a consequence of the treatment. Damaging de novo variations in both isolated CDH and complex CDH-complex have been found associated with pulmonary hypertension, higher mortality rate, and worse neurodevelopmental outcome (33). There is a large difference in survival rates between patients with or without persistent pulmonary hypertension (39) and bronchopulmonary sequestration (40). The genetic contribution to bronchopulmonary sequestration etiology is unknown. Mutations in BMPR2 (41, 42) and several SMAD signaling molecule genes have been associated with the development of pulmonary hypertension in adults and children (43–45). A striking association between TGF-β/SMAD signaling and pulmonary hypertension has been reported in CDH, as the CDH lungs had increased miR-200b expression and decreased TGF-β/SMAD signaling (46). Increasing miR-200b decreases the TGF-β signaling and reduces lung hypoplasia in a nitrofen induced congenital diaphragmatic hernia -pulmonary hypertension rat model (46). Similarly, Pereira-Terra and colleagues described a specific micro-RNA signature in tracheal aspirate fluid, upregulation of miR-200b and miR-10a and decreased TGFB signaling (47). Patients with mutations in genes from this pathway have connective tissue disorders (48). In patients and mice, several genetic factors have been associated to lung and cardiac abnormalities (2, 49–52). CDH has been found in patients with connective tissue disorders such as Marfan syndrome (53), Loeys-Dietz Syndrome (54, 55) and arterial tortuosity syndrome (56). Patients with these connective tissue disorders are at increased risk of cardiovascular problems (57, 58) later in life. Abnormal retinoic acid signaling can result in a diaphragm defect (59). Patients with variants in STRA6 and RARB-receptors and deletions of RBP1 at chromosome 3q22 (60, 61) in the retinoic acid signaling pathway have ophthalmic symptoms (62, 63). Patients with CDH may have other eye defects as well (64, 65). These occurrences of direct genotype-phenotype correlations stress the importance of genetic diagnostic screening to inform parents and patients about possible co-morbidities.

CDH Is a Complex Genetic Disorder

CDH is a multifactorial disease but neither environmental nor genetic contributions have been fully characterized. Maternal morbidities during pregnancy such as pre-gestational hypertension (66) and pre-existent maternal obesity (67–69) are associated with an increased risk for development of CDH in the fetus. Several other environmental factors have been associated with an increased risk: antidepressant medication (70), antibacterial medication (71), exposure to fungicides (72), the immunosuppressant drug mycophenolate mofetil (73), methotrexate use (74), exposure to cadmium (75), pesticides (76), hairspray use (77), alcohol intake (69, 77–79), and smoking (75, 78, 80). However, to what extent these associations impact diaphragm development and the onset of CDH is not known. The mother's nutrient intake during pregnancy is associated as well (81, 82); reduced vitamin A intake during pregnancy has the strongest associations with CDH (83, 84). Vitamin A shortage can be detected postnatally (85). It is hard to determine whether environmental factors explain some of the non-genetic contributions on a population level or to what extent the environment interacts with the processes disturbed by genetic anomalies. Epigenetic differences acquired during the life span can be detected between monozygotic twin pairs (86–88). Evaluating these differences—and the resulting gene expression changes—is an interesting approach. There are methods to overcome cellular heterogeneity and if epigenetic changes are present in blood these can be compared between patient and sibling (89–91).

The exact heritability—the contribution of genetic factors—is difficult to determine, in light of the relatively low disease incidence, the high mortality limiting vertical transmission and the limited numbers of twin pregnancies (92, 93). Heritability can be estimated using twin studies. For CDH, the concordance rates in dizygotic and monozygotic twins are comparable. Fifty-three monozygotic twins have been described, of whom 12 were concordant for CDH (2, 92). In our cohort, 24 twin pairs (15 dizygotic, 8 monozygotic, and one same sex twin pair of whom no genetic material was available to determine zygosity) are described. One dizygotic and one monozygotic twin pair were concordant for CDH. To reduce the effect of technical noise in twin comparisons, we used different alignment techniques, variant callers and statistics (see Supplementary Table S3). Neither the larger CNVs (94) nor SNVs (see Supplementary Table S3) differed between these twin siblings. Differences in phenotype can also be the result of twin-to-twin perfusion differences. Furthermore, single nucleotide changes could be located outside the coding sequence or at very low frequency, and then could not be detected with exome sequencing.

Somatic mosaicism is difficult to determine when the affected tissue or cells are missing. The mutated diaphragmatic cells might not have survived in sufficient quantities and, therefore, be undetectable with sequencing technologies (95). In line with this, whole genome sequencing did not find causative somatic variants in diaphragm biopsies (96, 97). In contrast, germline de novo variants are often present (33, 96–98). Females have a higher burden of de novo variants (98), suggesting a female protective model. Large cohort descriptions about sibling recurrence rate (92) or familial CDH are not available. In our cohort, only a few familial cases are known (<1%). Still, CDH is described to segregate through families (1) and/or present as a monogenetic disorder following autosomal dominant (53, 98–109), autosomal recessive (62, 110), or X-linked (111–113) inheritance patterns.

Depending on the specific family the monogenetic disorder has CDH is either a common or a less prevalent feature. More than 100 (candidate) genes have been described, mostly identified from animal models or monogenetic syndromes (2, 19). Monogenetic syndromes often have distinct phenotypical features and have been reviewed by Longoni et al. and Yu et al. (20, 114). Monogenetic syndromes in which CDH is a frequent feature are, for instance, autosomal recessive Donnai Barrow syndrome (OMIM: #22248, LRP2 gene), syndromic microphthalmia (#601186, #615524, STRA6, RARB), and autosomal dominant cardiac-urogenital syndrome (#3618280, MYRF gene). Associated phenotypes in these syndromes are congenital heart defects, sensorineural hearing loss, microphthalmia, genitourinary malformations, craniosynostosis and myopia with each of these syndromes its distinct features. Detailed phenotyping might be crucial in diagnosing clusters of CDH patients: either “phenotype first” and searching for an overlapping gene or “genotype first” and searching if patients with the same affected gene have an overlapping phenotype. Interestingly, Fryns syndrome and also Pentalogy of Cantrell have CDH as a defining feature; yet the gene or genes responsible for these conditions are not yet known.

CNV studies reported overlapping deletions and duplications, such as duplications of 11q23-qter (115), 16p11.2p duplications (15, 18), 17q12 deletions (15, 18, 116, 117), and 5p15.2 deletions (15). By prioritizing and sequencing the genes within these CNVs in other patients, new disease genes have been discovered. For example, in the 8p23.1 deletions (118–120), GATA4 (50) and SOX7 (121) and in case of 8q23.1 deletions (18), ZFPM2 (122) are the genes likely contributing to CDH. 15q26 deletions (120, 123) and subsequent sequencing implicate NR2F2 as a disease gene (124). For 1q41–1q42 deletions, one duplication disrupting the HLX gene and subsequent HLX gene variants have been described (15, 18, 125–128). Constraint coding regions are enriched for de novo variants (104), and using variant evaluation guidelines of rare de novo changes in these types of constraint genes (129) result in a likely pathogenic or pathogenic classification, especially if variants result in reduced amounts of protein.

Interpretation of genetic results can be hindered by reduced penetrance (18, 122) and variable expressivity (2) that may mask the causal culprit in segregation analysis (see Figure 1). Polygenic inheritance (51), locus heterogeneity (33, 34, 130), and contributions of different kinds of genetic variation (17, 114) mask culprits from innocent bystanders. Therefore, large patient and control samples sizes are required to have enough power to classify variants into “benign,” “causal,” or “contributing.”

Figure 1

From Pathogenic Alteration to CDH

Finding a genetic variant predicted to be deleterious is only the first step in proving the functional effect of this DNA alteration. This is especially true for missense changes, in-frame insertion-deletions and copy number variations. Often there is only in-silico evidence regarding the impact of a variant on gene function and the way in which the disturbed gene function affects a biological pathway or mechanism. What is lacking is proof how a specific deleterious variant lead to defective diaphragm formation. Unfortunately, for most likely pathogenic CNVs and SNVs, the assumed functional consequence is based on the genetic alteration itself: i.e., copy number loss or nonsense variant is assumed to result in reduced amounts of mRNA expression and protein. Deleterious de novo missense variants and in-frame insertion-deletions in conserved coding regions are more difficult to relate to a likely functional consequence and is often on in-silico surveys. Improving the in-vitro evaluation of candidate variants is crucial in distinguishing causal variants from non-causal variants. These experiments require tremendous effort and can be complicated by the presence of more than one candidate alteration.

Detecting a deleterious variant in a gene in multiple patients helps prioritizing candidate genes for function evaluation and studies using animal models. In a large cohort (n = 827), seven syndromic and four recurrent CNVs were identified (104). Some of these have already been associated with CDH; e.g., 17q12 deletions, 16p13.1 duplications, 22q11 deletions, and 21q22 duplications. Furthermore, 87 CNVs were de novo, of which 54 were large (>2 Mb) deletions (104). Although non-recurrent, at least a proportion of these large de novo deletions are likely to be related to the patient's phenotype. Ten genes were enriched for de novo variants, of which mitochondrial lon peptidase 1 (LONP1) and Aly/REF export factor (ALYREF) were the most promising candidate disease genes. LONP1, MYRF as well as ZFPM2 reached or approached genome wide significance when a variant burden test was performed for all deleterious changes (i.e., including inherited variants) (104). Combining multiple “omics” and in-vitro translational approaches can potentially bridge the gap between genetic findings and animal models.

In animal models, fewer progenitors reaching the PPF at the proper developmental due to decreased proliferation, increased apoptosis, migration defects or failure to differentiate in their proper cell fates have been proposed as causes for CDH (131–134). Disturbances in specific processes such as retinoic acid signaling or muscle connective tissue formation were initially discovered in animal experiments; genes associated with these pathways or processes were subsequently found altered in patients (132, 135–138). Additionally, disturbed processes can be identified using gene enrichment strategies to find common denominators in the affected genes and loci. Longoni and colleagues described the enrichment of rare, likely deleterious variants in CDH patients of genes derived from mouse PPF embryonic transcriptomes (139), known human disease genes, their protein interaction partners and candidate genes from CNV hotspots (35). Often, these alterations were inherited and implicate non-Mendelian inheritance patterns. On the individual level, these changes can be regarded as risk factors. Combined, these changes may affect a biological pathway to such an extent that they result in CDH. Assigning such a pathway or process—for instance how these gene variants disturb myoblast progenitor cell proliferation or migration—is not easy. Animal models are not perfect, although they provide evidence of involvement of a gene when it is knocked-out and in which cases the animals develop CDH at a certain frequency. However, this procedure hardly ever takes into account that genetic variation is mostly not a complete loss-of-function of a gene. Missense variants, copy number gains and heterozygous changes could—and likely do—differ in impact or mechanism of action. Thus, in these cases, knock-out models either over- or underestimate the effect of a genetic variant.

In some cases, specific variants can be associated with the causative mechanism; e.g., the association of FBN1 variants in Marfan syndrome (53) and defects in the connective tissue. Indeed, our cohort included patients with FBN1 and TGFB3 alterations. In other patients, the affected pathway is known; e.g., patients with deletions of NR2F2 (123) have a defect in a gene that codes for a receptor that is activated by retinoic acid signaling (140). Of other genes, we know that they interact with other disease genes, are expressed in the developing diaphragm and are also associated with retinoic acid signaling (e.g., ZFPM2, GATA4). A small difference in spatial and temporal binding and organ-specific combination of transcription factors have been suggested as links between the different syndromes with CDH (141). Most of the deleterious CNVs and aneuploidies are assumed pathogenic and the most likely cause of the diaphragm defect. However, how these—often continuous gene deletions—in patients impact diaphragm formation and subsequently result in CDH remains unclear.

Temporal Screening Bias

Technologies have a different resolution to detect genomic changes ranging from chromosome arms, several mega-bases to single nucleotide level. Initially, patients were evaluated with karyotyping, MLPA and QF-PCR, with which only aneuploidies or chromosome (band) level changes could be detected. At the Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, SNP-array was introduced in 2010 and is standard practice in case of ultrasound abnormalities since 2012. The use of SNP arrays increased the detection resolution to gains and losses of several from mb to kilobases. Many patients in our cohort have retrospectively been re-evaluated with SNP-array. In 10.9% of patients a pathogenic change was. Similarly, 10.4% of patients registered in the EUROCAT registry (1980–2009) have a chromosomal anomaly, genetic syndrome or microdeletion (3). This was before the NGS era, and the findings mostly represent the larger genetic changes with a large phenotypic effect. Whole exome sequencing was introduced in our clinic more recently (2015), and initially only used to evaluate the more complex patients. Restoring the temporal screening bias by screening large historical cohorts of patients and subsequent evaluating potential associations between genetic factors and long-term morbidity can benefit the future and today's patients and parents.

Collaboration Is Key

Combining disease cohorts revealed that damaging de novo alterations are associated with the more severe and complex phenotypes (33, 130). This strategy was pivotal in identifying disease genes (98, 104, 130, 142). The success of this effort stresses the importance of collaborations such as the DHREAMS consortium (http://www.cdhgenetics.com). Trio whole genome-based approaches are recommended, as these enable to simultaneously determine different types of genetic variation. Additionally, this technique is suited for continuous re-analysis. By combining and sequencing these cohorts, the CDH-EURO consortium (143) and Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Study Group (144) can add to endeavors of the DHREAMS consortium. This will enable to identify genes that are more often affected in patients than by chance alone, and will allow manageable numbers of required functional tests and animal models. For collaborations to work, samples need to be stored in well-managed biobanks and data should be meticulously archived for later re-analysis or re-evaluation. New challenges for these biobanks and data archiving and sharing are privacy regulations (145). Sharing of patient material and data should consider the privacy of participants and their families but also acknowledge the efforts of stakeholders such as researchers and clinicians (146). An ethical and legal balance should be sought weighing the privacy needs of individual patients against the medical benefits of the patient population.

Conclusions

Diagnostic yields of up to 37% using next generation sequencing have been proposed. These yields are reached when, in addition to genes from known monogenetic syndromes, heterozygous de novo variants in genes expressed at the proper time-point in relevant tissue in animal models are classified as likely pathogenic (105). Importantly, heritability and diagnostic yield are calculated on a population level. From a patient's or parents' perspective it matters the most to know (1) if they themselves or theirchildren haveordo not have genetic changes in their genome explaining the CDH, (2) if subsequent children or patients' offspring are at risk of CDH, and (3) what the consequences of these changes are for the prognosis and/or the probability of complications. CDH is now mostly detected prenatally; consequently, fast, accurate, and predictive genetic diagnostics are increasingly needed. As about a third of patients have a de novo variant in the coding region (104). For parents to make informed choices, it is vital to knowing if a genetic variant detected in their child is causal or benign, and what the predicted consequences are of this variant.

Funding

This work was supported by the Sophia Foundation for Scientific Research [Grant Numbers 493 (DT and AdK) and S13-09 (DT, AdK, and EB)].

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1.

  PoberBR. Overview of epidemiology, genetics, birth defects, chromosome abnormalities associated with CDH. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. (2007) 145c:158–71. 10.1002/ajmg.c.30126

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2.

  KardonGAckermanKGMcCulleyDJShenYWynnJShangLet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernias: from genes to mechanisms to therapies. Dis Models Mech. (2017) 10:955–70. 10.1242/dmm.028365

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3.

  McGivernMRBestKERankinJWellesleyDGreenleesRAddorMCet al. Epidemiology of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in Europe: a register-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. (2015) 100:F137–44. 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306174

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4.

  GrandjeanHLarroqueDLeviS. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus Study. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. (1999) 181:446–54. 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70577-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5.

  GrahamGDevinePC. Antenatal diagnosis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Perinatol. (2005) 29:69–76. 10.1053/j.semperi.2005.04.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6.

  GarneEHaeuslerMBarisicIGjergjaRStollCClementiM. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: evaluation of prenatal diagnosis in 20 European regions. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol. (2002) 19:329–33. 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00635.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7.

  BurgosCMFrencknerBLucoMHartingMTLallyPALallyKP. Prenatally versus postnatally diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia - side, stage, and outcome. J Pediatric Surg. (2019) 54:651–5. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.04.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8.

  GuptaVSHartingMTLallyPAMillerCCHirschlRBDavisCFet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia study, mortality in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a multicenter registry study of over 5000 patients over 25 years. Ann Surg. (2021). 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005113. [Epub ahead of print].

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9.

  Global PaedSurg Research C. Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study. Lancet. (2021) 398:325–39. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00767-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10.

  ClealLMcHaffieSLLeeMHastieNMartínez-EstradaOMChauYY. Resolving the heterogeneity of diaphragmatic mesenchyme: a novel mouse model of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Dis Models Mech. (2021) 14:dmm046797. 10.1242/dmm.046797

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  CarmonaRCañeteACanoEArizaLRojasAMuñoz-ChápuliR. Conditional deletion of WT1 in the septum transversum mesenchyme causes congenital diaphragmatic hernia in mice. Elife. (2016) 5:e16009. 10.7554/eLife.16009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  SeftonEMGallardoMKardonG. Developmental origin and morphogenesis of the diaphragm, an essential mammalian muscle. Dev Biol. (2018) 440:64–73. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.04.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  SeftonEMKardonG. Connecting muscle development, birth defects, and evolution: an essential role for muscle connective tissue. Curr Top Dev Biol. (2019) 132:137–76. 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2018.12.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14.

  EdelGGSchaafGWijnenRMHTibboelDKardonGRottierRJ. Cellular origin(s) of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Front Pediatrics. (2021) 9:804496. 10.3389/fped.2021.804496

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15.

  ZhuQHighFAZhangCCerveiraERussellMKLongoniMet al. Systematic analysis of copy number variation associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2018) 115:5247–52. 10.1073/pnas.1714885115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16.

  ScottDAKlaassensMHolderAMLallyKPFernandesCJGaljaardRJet al. Genome-wide oligonucleotide-based array comparative genome hybridization analysis of non-isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Human Mol Genet. (2007) 16:424–30. 10.1093/hmg/ddl475

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17.

  YuLWynnJMaLGuhaSMychaliskaGBCrombleholmeTMet al. De novo copy number variants are associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Med Genet. (2012) 49:650–9. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  WatMJVeenmaDHogueJHolderAMYuZWatJJet al. Genomic alterations that contribute to the development of isolated and non-isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Med Genet. (2011) 48:299–307. 10.1136/jmg.2011.089680

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  HolderAMKlaassensMTibboelDde KleinALeeBScottDA. Genetic factors in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Hum Genet. (2007) 80:825–45. 10.1086/513442

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20.

  LongoniMPoberBRHighFA. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia overview. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJH, Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews(®).Seattle, WA: University of Washington; Copyright © 1993-2020. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. GeneReviews Is a Registered Trademark of the University of Washington, Seattle (1993).

  • Google Scholar

• 21.

  Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudyGMoriniFValfrèLCapolupoILallyKPLallyPAet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: defect size correlates with developmental defect. J Pediatric Surg. (2013) 48:1177–82. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.03.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22.

  KilianAKBüsingKASchuetzEMSchaibleTNeffKW. Fetal MR lung volumetry in congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH): prediction of clinical outcome and the need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Klinische Padiatrie. (2009) 221:295–301. 10.1055/s-0029-1192022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23.

  MetkusAPFillyRAStringerMDHarrisonMRAdzickNS. Sonographic predictors of survival in fetal diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatric Surg. (1996) 31:148–51; discussion: 151–2. 10.1016/S0022-3468(96)90338-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24.

  CordierAGJaniJCCannieMMRodóCFabiettiIPersicoNet al. Stomach position in prediction of survival in left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia with or without fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion. Ultrasound Obstetr Gynecol. (2015) 46:155–61. 10.1002/uog.14759

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25.

  BastaAMLuskLAKellerRLFillyRA. Fetal stomach position predicts neonatal outcomes in isolated left-sided congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Fetal Diagnosis Ther. (2016) 39:248–55. 10.1159/000440649

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26.

  DeprestJAFlemmerAWGratacosENicolaidesK. Antenatal prediction of lung volume and in-utero treatment by fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion in severe isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. (2009) 14:8–13. 10.1016/j.siny.2008.08.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27.

  SnoekKGPetersNCJvan RosmalenJvan HeijstAFJEgginkAJSikkelEet al. The validity of the observed-to-expected lung-to-head ratio in congenital diaphragmatic hernia in an era of standardized neonatal treatment; a multicenter study. Prenatal Diagnosis. (2017) 37:658–65. 10.1002/pd.5062

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28.

  FergusonDMGuptaVSLallyPALucoMTsaoKLallyKPet al. Postnatal pulmonary hypertension severity predicts inpatient outcomes in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Neonatology. (2021) 118:147–54. 10.1159/000512966

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  BrindleMECookEFTibboelDLallyPALallyKP. A clinical prediction rule for the severity of congenital diaphragmatic hernias in newborns. Pediatrics. (2014) 134:e413–9. 10.1542/peds.2013-3367

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  YuLSawleADWynnJAspelundGStolarCJArkovitzMSet al. Increased burden of de novo predicted deleterious variants in complex congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Human Mol Genet. (2015) 24:4764–73. 10.1093/hmg/ddv196

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  Cochius-den OtterSCMErdemÖvan RosmalenJSchaibleTPetersNCJCohen-OverbeekTEet al. Validation of a prediction rule for mortality in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pediatrics. (2020) 145:e20192379. 10.1542/peds.2019-2379

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  StollCAlembikYDottBRothMP. Associated malformations in cases with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Genet Couns. (2008) 19:331–9.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  ZaissIKehlSLinkKNeffWSchaibleTSütterlinMet al. Associated malformations in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Perinatol. (2011) 28:211–8. 10.1055/s-0030-1268235

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  QiaoLWynnJYuLHernanRZhouXDuronVet al. Likely damaging de novo variants in congenital diaphragmatic hernia patients are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Genet Med. (2020) 22:2020–8. 10.1038/s41436-020-0908-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  LongoniMHighFARussellMKKashaniATracyAAColettiCMet al. Molecular pathogenesis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia revealed by exome sequencing, developmental data, and bioinformatics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2014) 111:12450–5. 10.1073/pnas.1412509111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  BendixenCReutterH. The role of de novo variants in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Genes. (2021) 12:1405. 10.3390/genes12091405

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  AmoilsMCrisham JanikMLustigLR. Patterns and predictors of sensorineural hearing loss in children with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. JAMA Otolaryngol. (2015) 141:923–6. 10.1001/jamaoto.2015.1670

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  MasumotoKNagataKUesugiTYamadaTTaguchiT. Risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss in survivors with severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Euro J Pediatr. (2007) 166:607–12. 10.1007/s00431-006-0300-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  CoughlinMAWernerNLGajarskiRGadepalliSHirschlRBarksJet al. Prenatally diagnosed severe CDH: mortality and morbidity remain high. J Pediatric Surg. (2016) 51:1091–5. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.10.082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  CoughlinMAGuptaVSEbanksAHHartingMTLallyKP. Incidence and outcomes of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and pulmonary sequestration. J Pediatric Surg. (2021) 56:1126–9. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.02.032

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  LaneKBMachadoRDPauciuloMWThomsonJRPhillipsJA3rdLoydJEet al. Heterozygous germline mutations in BMPR2, encoding a TGF-beta receptor, cause familial primary pulmonary hypertension. Nat Genet. (2000) 26:81–4. 10.1038/79226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  ThomsonJRMachadoRDPauciuloMWMorganNVHumbertMElliottGCet al. Sporadic primary pulmonary hypertension is associated with germline mutations of the gene encoding BMPR-II, a receptor member of the TGF-β family. J Med Genet. (2000) 37:741–5. 10.1136/jmg.37.10.741

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43.

  NasimMTOgoTAhmedMRandallRChowdhuryHMSnapeKMet al. Molecular genetic characterization of SMAD signaling molecules in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Human Mutation. (2011) 32:1385–9. 10.1002/humu.21605

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44.

  ShintaniMYagiHNakayamaTSajiTMatsuokaR. A new nonsense mutation of SMAD8 associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Med Genet. (2009) 46:331–7. 10.1136/jmg.2008.062703

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45.

  ZhuNGonzaga-JaureguiCWelchCLMaLQiHKingAKet al. Exome sequencing in children with pulmonary arterial hypertension demonstrates differences compared with adults. Circul Genomic Precision Med. (2018) 11:e001887. 10.1161/CIRCGEN.117.001887

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46.

  KhoshgooNKholdebarinRPereira-TerraPMahoodTHFalkLDayCAet al. Prenatal microRNA miR-200b therapy improves nitrofen-induced pulmonary hypoplasia associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ann Surg. (2019) 269:979–87. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002595

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47.

  Pereira-TerraPDeprestJAKholdebarinRKhoshgooNDeKoninckPMunckAAet al. Unique tracheal fluid microrna signature predicts response to FETO in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ann Surg. (2015) 262:1130–40. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001054

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48.

  MacFarlaneEGHauptJDietzHCShoreEM. TGF-β family signaling in connective tissue and skeletal diseases. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Biol. (2017) 9:a022269. 10.1101/cshperspect.a022269

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49.

  JayPYBielinskaMErlichJMMannistoSPuWTHeikinheimoMet al. Impaired mesenchymal cell function in Gata4 mutant mice leads to diaphragmatic hernias and primary lung defects. Dev Biol. (2007) 301:602–14. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.09.050

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50.

  YuLWynnJCheungYHShenYMychaliskaGBCrombleholmeTMet al. Variants in GATA4 are a rare cause of familial and sporadic congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Human Genet. (2013) 132:285–92. 10.1007/s00439-012-1249-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51.

  DonahoePKLongoniMHighFA. Polygenic causes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia produce common lung pathologies. Am J Pathol. (2016) 186:2532–43. 10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.07.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52.

  BradyPDVan HoudtJCallewaertBDeprestJDevriendtKVermeeschJR. Exome sequencing identifies ZFPM2 as a cause of familial isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia and possibly cardiovascular malformations. Euro J Med Genet. (2014) 57:247–52. 10.1016/j.ejmg.2014.04.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53.

  BeckTFCampeauPMJhangianiSNGambinTLiAHAbo-ZahrahRet al. FBN1 contributing to familial congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Med Genet A. (2015) 167a:831–6. 10.1002/ajmg.a.36960

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54.

  LobatonGOChenYJJelinEGarciaAV. Unusual case of delayed congenital diaphragmatic hernia in Loeys-Dietz syndrome: a case report. J Surg Case Rep. (2021) 2021:rjaa604. 10.1093/jscr/rjaa604

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55.

  MarsiliLOverwaterEHannaNBaujatGBaarsMJHBoileauCet al. Phenotypic spectrum of TGFB3 disease-causing variants in a Dutch-French cohort and first report of a homozygous patient. Clin Genet. (2020) 97:723–30. 10.1111/cge.13700

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56.

  ZaidiSHMeyerSPeltekovaITeebiASFaiyaz-Ul-HaqueM. Congenital diaphragmatic abnormalities in arterial tortuosity syndrome patients who carry mutations in the SLC2A10 gene. Clin Genet. (2009) 75:588–9. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01165.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57.

  MacCarrickGBlackJHBowdinSEl-HamamsyIFrischmeyer-GuerrerioPAGuerrerioALet al. Loeys–Dietz syndrome: a primer for diagnosis and management. Genet Med. (2014) 16:576–87. 10.1038/gim.2014.11

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58.

  YetmanATBornemeierRAMcCrindleBW. Long-term outcome in patients with Marfan syndrome: is aortic dissection the only cause of sudden death?J Am Coll Cardiol. (2003) 41:329–32. 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02699-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59.

  ClugstonRDZhangWAlvarezSde LeraARGreerJJ. Understanding abnormal retinoid signaling as a causative mechanism in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. (2010) 42:276–85. 10.1165/rcmb.2009-0076OC

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60.

  DillonERenwickMWrightC. Congenital diaphragmatic herniation: antenatal detection and outcome. Br J Radiol. (2000) 73:360–5. 10.1259/bjr.73.868.10844860

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61.

  WolstenholmeJBrownJMastersKGWrightCEnglishCJ. Blepharophimosis sequence and diaphragmatic hernia associated with interstitial deletion of chromosome 3 (46,XY,del(3)(q21q23)). J Med Genet. (1994) 31:647–8. 10.1136/jmg.31.8.647

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62.

  SrourMChitayatDCaronVChassaingNBitounPPatryLet al. Recessive and dominant mutations in retinoic acid receptor beta in cases with microphthalmia and diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Hum Genet. (2013) 93:765–72. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.08.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63.

  PasuttoFStichtHHammersenGGillessen-KaesbachGFitzpatrickDRNürnbergGet al. Mutations in STRA6 cause a broad spectrum of malformations including anophthalmia, congenital heart defects, diaphragmatic hernia, alveolar capillary dysplasia, lung hypoplasia, mental retardation. Am J Hum Genet. (2007) 80:550–60. 10.1086/512203

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64.

  KantarciSAl-GazaliLHillRSDonnaiDBlackGCBiethEet al. Mutations in LRP2, which encodes the multiligand receptor megalin, cause Donnai-Barrow and facio-oculo-acoustico-renal syndromes. Nat Genet. (2007) 39:957–9. 10.1038/ng2063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65.

  KammounMBradyPDe CatteLDeprestJDevriendtKVermeeschJR. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia as a part of Nance-Horan syndrome?Euro J Human Genet. (2018) 26:359–66. 10.1038/s41431-017-0032-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66.

  Mesas BurgosCEhrénHConnerPFrencknerB. Maternal risk factors and perinatal characteristics in congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a nationwide population-based study. Fetal Diagnosis Ther. (2019) 46:385–91. 10.1159/000497619

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67.

  BlombergMIKällénB. Maternal obesity and morbid obesity: the risk for birth defects in the offspring. Birth Defects Res. (2010) 88:35–40. 10.1002/bdra.20620

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68.

  WallerDKShawGMRasmussenSAHobbsCACanfieldMASiega-RizAMet al. Prepregnancy obesity as a risk factor for structural birth defects. Arch Pediatr Adolescent Med. (2007) 161:745–50. 10.1001/archpedi.161.8.745

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69.

  McAteerJPHechtADe RoosAJGoldinAB. Maternal medical and behavioral risk factors for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. J Pediatric Surg. (2014) 49:34–8; discussion: 38. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.09.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70.

  AndersonKNLindJNSimeoneRMBoboWVMitchellAARiehle-ColarussoTet al. Maternal use of specific antidepressant medications during early pregnancy and the risk of selected birth defects. JAMA Psychiatry. (2020) 77:1246–55. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2453

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71.

  CriderKSClevesMAReefhuisJBerryRJHobbsCAHuDJ. Antibacterial medication use during pregnancy and risk of birth defects: National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Arch Pediatr Adolescent Med. (2009) 163:978–85. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.188

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72.

  CarterTCDruschelCMRomittiPABellEMWerlerMMMitchellAA. Antifungal drugs and the risk of selected birth defects. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. (2008) 198:191.e1–7. 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.044

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73.

  Perez-AytesAMarin-ReinaPBosoVLedoACareyJCVentoM. Mycophenolate mofetil embryopathy: a newly recognized teratogenic syndrome. Euro J Med Genet. (2017) 60:16–21. 10.1016/j.ejmg.2016.09.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74.

  DawsonALRiehle-ColarussoTReefhuisJArenaJF. Maternal exposure to methotrexate and birth defects: a population-based study. Am J Med Genet A. (2014) 164a:2212–6. 10.1002/ajmg.a.36625

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75.

  RamakrishnanRStuartALSalemiJLChenHO'RourkeKKirbyRS. Maternal exposure to ambient cadmium levels, maternal smoking during pregnancy, and congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Birth Defects Res. (2019) 111:1399–407. 10.1002/bdr2.1555

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76.

  CarmichaelSLYangWRobertsEKegleySEBrownTJEnglishPBet al. Residential agricultural pesticide exposures and risks of selected birth defects among offspring in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Birth Defects Res. (2016) 106:27–35. 10.1002/bdra.23459

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77.

  SchulzFJenetzkyEZwinkNBendixenCKipfmuellerFRafatNet al. Parental risk factors for congenital diaphragmatic hernia - a large German case-control study. BMC Pediatr. (2021) 21:278. 10.1186/s12887-021-02748-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78.

  BalaylaJAbenhaimHA. Incidence, predictors and outcomes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a population-based study of 32 million births in the United States. J Maternal Fetal Neonatal Med. (2014) 27:1438–44. 10.3109/14767058.2013.858691

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79.

  FelixJFvan DoorenMFKlaassensMHopWCTorfsCPTibboelD. Environmental factors in the etiology of esophageal atresia and congenital diaphragmatic hernia: results of a case-control study. Birth Defects Res. (2008) 82:98–105. 10.1002/bdra.20423

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80.

  CaspersKMOlteanCRomittiPASunLPoberBRRasmussenSAet al. Maternal periconceptional exposure to cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption and congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Birth Defects Res. (2010) 88:1040–9. 10.1002/bdra.20716

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81.

  YangWShawGMCarmichaelSLRasmussenSAWallerDKPoberBRet al. Nutrient intakes in women and congenital diaphragmatic hernia in their offspring. Birth Defects Res. (2008) 82:131–8. 10.1002/bdra.20436

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82.

  CarmichaelSLMaCWitteJSYangWRasmussenSABrunelliLet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia and maternal dietary nutrient pathways and diet quality. Birth Defects Res. (2020) 112:1475–83. 10.1002/bdr2.1770

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83.

  BeurskensLWSchrijverLHTibboelDWildhagenMFKnapenMFLindemansJet al. Dietary vitamin A intake below the recommended daily intake during pregnancy and the risk of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in the offspring. Birth Defects Res. (2013) 97:60–6. 10.1002/bdra.23093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84.

  MichikawaTYamazakiSSekiyamaMKurodaTNakayamaSFIsobeTet al. Maternal dietary intake of vitamin A during pregnancy was inversely associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: the Japan Environment and Children's Study. Br J Nutr. (2019) 122:1295–302. 10.1017/S0007114519002204

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85.

  BeurskensLWTibboelDLindemansJDuvekotJJCohen-OverbeekTEVeenmaDCet al. Retinol status of newborn infants is associated with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pediatrics. (2010) 126:712–20. 10.1542/peds.2010-0521

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86.

  FragaMFBallestarEPazMFRoperoSSetienFBallestarMLet al. Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2005) 102:10604–9. 10.1073/pnas.0500398102

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87.

  MalkiKKoritskayaEHarrisFBrysonKHerbsterMTostoMG. Epigenetic differences in monozygotic twins discordant for major depressive disorder. Transl Psychiatry. (2016) 6:e839. 10.1038/tp.2016.101

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88.

  Castillo-FernandezJESpectorTDBellJT. Epigenetics of discordant monozygotic twins: implications for disease. Genome Med. (2014) 6:60. 10.1186/s13073-014-0060-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89.

  JaffeAEIrizarryRA. Accounting for cellular heterogeneity is critical in epigenome-wide association studies. Genome Biol. (2014) 15:R31. 10.1186/gb-2014-15-2-r31

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90.

  GervinKSalasLABakulskiKMvan ZelmMCKoestlerDCWienckeJKet al. Systematic evaluation and validation of reference and library selection methods for deconvolution of cord blood DNA methylation data. Clin Epigenet. (2019) 11:125. 10.1186/s13148-019-0717-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91.

  RahmaniESchweigerRRheadBCriswellLABarcellosLFEskinEet al. Cell-type-specific resolution epigenetics without the need for cell sorting or single-cell biology. Nat Commun. (2019) 10:3417. 10.1038/s41467-019-11052-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92.

  PoberBRLinARussellMAckermanKGChakravortySStraussBet al. Infants with Bochdalek diaphragmatic hernia: sibling precurrence and monozygotic twin discordance in a hospital-based malformation surveillance program. Am J Med Genet. (2005) 138A:81–8. 10.1002/ajmg.a.30904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93.

  WangWPanWChenJXieWLiuMWangJ. Outcomes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in one of the twins. Am J Perinatol. (2019) 36:1304–9. 10.1055/s-0038-1676830

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94.

  VeenmaDBrosensEde JongEvan de VenCMeeussenCCohen-OverbeekTet al. Copy number detection in discordant monozygotic twins of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) and Esophageal Atresia (EA) cohorts. Euro J Human Genet. (2012) 20:298–304. 10.1038/ejhg.2011.194

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95.

  MacKenzieKCGarritsenRChauhanRKSribudianiYde GraafBMRugenbrinkTet al. The somatic mutation paradigm in congenital malformations: hirschsprung disease as a model. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22:12354. 10.3390/ijms222212354

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96.

  MatsunamiNShanmugamHBairdLStevensJByrneJLBarnhartDCet al. Germline but not somatic de novo mutations are common in human congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Birth Defects Res. (2018) 110:610–7. 10.1002/bdr2.1223

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97.

  BogenschutzELFoxZDFarrellAWynnJMooreBYuLet al. Deep whole-genome sequencing of multiple proband tissues and parental blood reveals the complex genetic etiology of congenital diaphragmatic hernias. HGG Adv. (2020) 1:100008. 10.1101/2020.04.03.024398

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98.

  QiHYuLZhouXWynnJZhaoHGuoYet al. De novo variants in congenital diaphragmatic hernia identify MYRF as a new syndrome and reveal genetic overlaps with other developmental disorders. PLoS Genet. (2018) 14:e1007822. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007822

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99.

  DevriendtKDeloofEMoermanPLegiusEVanholeCde ZegherFet al. Diaphragmatic hernia in Denys-Drash syndrome. Am J Med Genet. (1995) 57:97–101. 10.1002/ajmg.1320570120

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100.

  AntoniusTvan BonBEgginkAvan der BurgtINoordamKvan HeijstA. Denys-Drash syndrome and congenital diaphragmatic hernia: another case with the 1097G > A(Arg366His) mutation. Am J Med Genet A. (2008) 146a:496–9. 10.1002/ajmg.a.32168

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101.

  SuriMKelehanPO'NeillDVadeyarSGrantJAhmedSFet al. WT1 mutations in Meacham syndrome suggest a coelomic mesothelial origin of the cardiac and diaphragmatic malformations. Am J Med Genet. (2007) 143a:2312–20. 10.1002/ajmg.a.31924

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102.

  DenamurEBocquetNBaudouinVDa SilvaFVeitiaRPeuchmaurMet al. WT1 splice-site mutations are rarely associated with primary steroid-resistant focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Int. (2000) 57:1868–72. 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00036.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103.

  SchwabMEDongSLianoglouBRAguilar LuceroAFSchwartzGBNortonMEet al. Exome sequencing of fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia supports a causal role for NR2F2, PTPN11, WT1 variants. Am J Surg. (2021). 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.07.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104.

  QiaoLXuLYuLWynnJHernanRZhouXet al. Rare and de novo variants in 827 congenital diaphragmatic hernia probands implicate LONP1 as candidate risk gene. Am J Hum Genet. (2021) 108:1964–80. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.08.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105.

  ScottTMCampbellIMHernandez-GarciaALalaniSRLiuPShawCAet al. Clinical exome sequencing data reveal high diagnostic yields for congenital diaphragmatic hernia plus (CDH+) and new phenotypic expansions involving CDH. J Med Genet. (2021). 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107317. [Epub ahead of print].

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106.

  JacobsAMToudjarskaIRacineATsipourasPKilpatrickMWShanskeA. A recurring FBN1 gene mutation in neonatal Marfan syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. (2002) 156:1081–5. 10.1001/archpedi.156.11.1081

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107.

  RevencuNQuenumGDetailleTVerellenGDe PaepeAVerellen-DumoulinC. Congenital diaphragmatic eventration and bilateral uretero-hydronephrosis in a patient with neonatal Marfan syndrome caused by a mutation in exon 25 of the FBN1 gene and review of the literature. Euro J Pediatr. (2004) 163:33–7. 10.1007/s00431-003-1330-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108.

  StheneurCFaivreLCollod-BéroudGGautierEBinquetCBonithon-KoppCet al. Prognosis factors in probands with an FBN1 mutation diagnosed before the age of 1 year. Pediatric Res. (2011) 69:265–70. 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3182097219

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109.

  HosokawaSTakahashiNKitajimaHNakayamaMKosakiKOkamotoN. Brachmann-de Lange syndrome with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and NIPBL gene mutation. Congenital Anomalies. (2010) 50:129–32. 10.1111/j.1741-4520.2010.00270.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110.

  DonnaiDBarrowM. Diaphragmatic hernia, exomphalos, absent corpus callosum, hypertelorism, myopia, and sensorineural deafness: a newly recognized autosomal recessive disorder?Am J Med Genet. (1993) 47:679–82. 10.1002/ajmg.1320470518

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111.

  MaasSMLombardiMPvan EssenAJWakelingELCastleBTempleIKet al. Phenotype and genotype in 17 patients with Goltz-Gorlin syndrome. J Med Genet. (2009) 46:716–20. 10.1136/jmg.2009.068403

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112.

  YanoSBaskinBBagheriAWatanabeYMoseleyKNishimuraAet al. Familial Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome: studies of X-chromosome inactivation and clinical phenotypes in two female individuals with GPC3 mutations. Clin Genet. (2011) 80:466–71. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01554.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113.

  HogueJShankarSPerryHPatelRVargervikKSlavotinekA. A novel EFNB1 mutation (c.712delG) in a family with craniofrontonasal syndrome and diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Med Genet A. (2010) 152a:2574–7. 10.1002/ajmg.a.33596

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114.

  YuLHernanRRWynnJChungWK. The influence of genetics in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Perinatol. (2020) 44:151169. 10.1053/j.semperi.2019.07.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115.

  KlaassensMScottDAvan DoorenMHochstenbachREussenHJCaiWWet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia associated with duplication of 11q23-qter. Am J Med Genet A. (2006) 140:1580–6. 10.1002/ajmg.a.31321

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116.

  GoumyCLaffargueFEymard-PierreEKemenySGay-BellileMGouasLet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia may be associated with 17q12 microdeletion syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. (2015) 167a:250–3. 10.1002/ajmg.a.36840

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117.

  HendrixNWClemensMCanavanTPSurtiURajkovicA. Prenatally diagnosed 17q12 microdeletion syndrome with a novel association with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Fetal Diagnosis Ther. (2012) 31:129–33. 10.1159/000332968

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118.

  WatMJShchelochkovOAHolderAMBremanAMDagliABacinoCet al. Chromosome 8p23.1 deletions as a cause of complex congenital heart defects and diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Med Genet A. (2009) 149a:1661–77. 10.1002/ajmg.a.32896

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119.

  LongoniMLageKRussellMKLoscertalesMAbdul-RahmanOABaynamGet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia interval on chromosome 8p23.1 characterized by genetics and protein interaction networks. Am J Med Genet A. (2012) 158a:3148–58. 10.1002/ajmg.a.35665

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120.

  SlavotinekALeeSSDavisRShritALeppigKARhimJet al. Fryns syndrome phenotype caused by chromosome microdeletions at 15q26.2 and 8p23.1. J Med Genet. (2005) 42:730–6. 10.1136/jmg.2004.028787

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121.

  WatMJBeckTFHernández-GarcíaAYuZVeenmaDGarciaMet al. Mouse model reveals the role of SOX7 in the development of congenital diaphragmatic hernia associated with recurrent deletions of 8p23.1. Human Mol Genet. (2012) 21:4115–25. 10.1093/hmg/dds241

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122.

  LongoniMRussellMKHighFADarvishiKMaaloufFIKashaniAet al. Prevalence and penetrance of ZFPM2 mutations and deletions causing congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Clin Genet. (2015) 87:362–7. 10.1111/cge.12395

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123.

  KlaassensMvan DoorenMEussenHJDoubenHden DekkerATLeeCet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia and chromosome 15q26: determination of a candidate region by use of fluorescent in situ hybridization and array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Am J Hum Genet. (2005) 76:877–82. 10.1086/429842

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124.

  HighFABhayaniPWilsonJMBultCJDonahoePKLongoniM. De novo frameshift mutation in COUP-TFII (NR2F2) in human congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Am J Med Genet A. (2016) 170:2457–61. 10.1002/ajmg.a.37830

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125.

  KantarciSCasavantDPradaCRussellMByrneJHaugLWet al. Findings from aCGH in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH): a possible locus for Fryns syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. (2006) 140:17–23. 10.1002/ajmg.a.31025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126.

  SlavotinekAMMoshrefiALopez JiminezNChaoRMendellAShawGMet al. Sequence variants in the HLX gene at chromosome 1q41-1q42 in patients with diaphragmatic hernia. Clin Genet. (2009) 75:429–39. 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01182.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127.

  ShafferLGTheisenABejjaniBABallifBCAylsworthASLimCet al. The discovery of microdeletion syndromes in the post-genomic era: review of the methodology and characterization of a new 1q41q42 microdeletion syndrome. Genet Med. (2007) 9:607–16. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181484b49

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128.

  SlavotinekAMMoshrefiADavisRLeethESchaefferGBBurchardGEet al. Array comparative genomic hybridization in patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia: mapping of four CDH-critical regions and sequencing of candidate genes at 15q26.1-15q26.2. Euro J Human Genet. (2006) 14:999–1008. 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201652

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129.

  RichardsSAzizNBaleSBickDDasSGastier-FosterJet al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. (2015) 17:405–24. 10.1038/gim.2015.30

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130.

  LongoniMHighFAQiHJoyMPHilaRColettiCMet al. Genome-wide enrichment of damaging de novo variants in patients with isolated and complex congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Human Genet. (2017) 136:679–91. 10.1007/s00439-017-1774-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131.

  MerrellAJEllisBJFoxZDLawsonJAWeissJAKardonG. Muscle connective tissue controls development of the diaphragm and is a source of congenital diaphragmatic hernias. Nat Genet. (2015) 47:496–504. 10.1038/ng.3250

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132.

  ParisNDColesGLAckermanKG. Wt1 and β-catenin cooperatively regulate diaphragm development in the mouse. Dev Biol. (2015) 407:40–56. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.08.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133.

  ColesGLAckermanKG. Kif7 is required for the patterning and differentiation of the diaphragm in a model of syndromic congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2013) 110:E1898–905. 10.1073/pnas.1222797110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134.

  ClugstonRDZhangWGreerJJ. Early development of the primordial mammalian diaphragm and cellular mechanisms of nitrofen-induced congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Birth Defects Res. (2010) 88:15–24. 10.1002/bdra.20613

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135.

  BeurskensNKlaassensMRottierRde KleinATibboelD. Linking animal models to human congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Birth Defects Res. (2007) 79:565–72. 10.1002/bdra.20370

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136.

  NakamuraHDoiTPuriPFriedmacherF. Transgenic animal models of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a comprehensive overview of candidate genes and signaling pathways. Pediatric Surg Int. (2020) 36:991–7. 10.1007/s00383-020-04705-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137.

  HornstraIKBirgeSStarcherBBaileyAJMechamRPShapiroSD. Lysyl oxidase is required for vascular and diaphragmatic development in mice. J Biol Chem. (2003) 278:14387–93. 10.1074/jbc.M210144200

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138.

  NodaKKitagawaKMikiTHoriguchiMAkamaTOTaniguchiTet al. A matricellular protein fibulin-4 is essential for the activation of lysyl oxidase. Sci Adv. (2020) 6:eabc1404. 10.1126/sciadv.abc1404

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139.

  RussellMKLongoniMWellsJMaaloufFITracyAALoscertalesMet al. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia candidate genes derived from embryonic transcriptomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2012) 109:2978–83. 10.1073/pnas.1121621109

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140.

  KruseSWSuino-PowellKZhouXEKretschmanJEReynoldsRVonrheinCet al. Identification of COUP-TFII orphan nuclear receptor as a retinoic acid-activated receptor. PLoS Biol. (2008) 6:e227. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060227

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141.

  EngelenEAkinciUBryneJCHouJGontanCMoenMet al. Sox2 cooperates with Chd7 to regulate genes that are mutated in human syndromes. Nat Genet. (2011) 43:607–11. 10.1038/ng.825

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142.

  BeckTFVeenmaDShchelochkovOAYuZKimBJZaveriHPet al. Deficiency of FRAS1-related extracellular matrix 1 (FREM1) causes congenital diaphragmatic hernia in humans and mice. Human Mol Genet. (2012) 22:1026–38. 10.1093/hmg/dds507

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143.

  ReissISchaibleTvan den HoutLCapolupoIAllegaertKvan HeijstAet al. Standardized postnatal management of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia in Europe: the CDH EURO Consortium consensus. Neonatology. (2010) 98:354–64. 10.1159/000320622

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144.

  Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Study Group. Estimating disease severity of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in the first 5 minutes of life. J Pediatric Surg. (2001) 36:141–5. 10.1053/jpsu.2001.20032

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145.

  BonomiLHuangYOhno-MachadoL. Privacy challenges and research opportunities for genomic data sharing. Nat Genet. (2020) 52:646–54. 10.1038/s41588-020-0651-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146.

  ByrdJBGreeneACPrasadDVJiangXGreeneCS. Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research. Nat Rev Genet. (2020) 21:615–29. 10.1038/s41576-020-0257-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar