Abstract
Meningomyelocele (also known as spina bifida) is considered to be a genetically complex disease resulting from a failure of the neural tube to close. Individuals with meningomyelocele display neuromotor disability and frequent hydrocephalus, requiring ventricular shunting. A few genes have been proposed to contribute to disease susceptibility, but beyond that it remains unexplained1. We postulated that de novo mutations under purifying selection contribute to the risk of developing meningomyelocele2. Here we recruited a cohort of 851 meningomyelocele trios who required shunting at birth and 732 control trios, and found that de novo likely gene disruption or damaging missense mutations occurred in approximately 22.3% of subjects, with 28% of such variants estimated to contribute to disease risk. The 187 genes with damaging de novo mutations collectively define networks including actin cytoskeleton and microtubule-based processes, Netrin-1 signalling and chromatin-modifying enzymes. Gene validation demonstrated partial or complete loss of function, impaired signalling and defective closure of the neural tube in Xenopus embryos. Our results indicate that de novo mutations make key contributions to meningomyelocele risk, and highlight critical pathways required for neural tube closure in human embryogenesis.
Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Learn more
Buy this article
Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Enrichment of damaging DNMs in MM versus control.
Fig. 2: Functional convergence of genes implicated by damaging DNMs.
Fig. 3: Functional modules that contribute to MM risk.
Fig. 4: Functional validation of damaging DNMs related to actin polymerization.
Data availability
The WES and WGS sequencing data used in this study are available in publicly accessible databases for the 1,146 subjects in the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (phs003746.v1.p1 and phs002591.v1.p1). Pedigree information with database of Genotypes and Phenotypes identifiers is available in the Supplementary Data. Sequencing data for the remaining subjects cannot be deposited in public repositories because they were enrolled in the study with consent forms that did not conform to current data-sharing requirements. Summary data for these subjects are available on request from the corresponding author (J.J.G.) on reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The computational codes used in this study are available at GitHub (https://github.com/Gleeson-Lab/Publications/tree/main/MM_DNM).
References
Iskandar, B. J. & Finnell, R. H. Spina bifida. N. Engl. J. Med. 387, 444–450 (2022).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. & Gleeson, J. G. Closing in on mechanisms of open neural tube defects. Trends Neurosci. 43, 519–532 (2020).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
MRC Vitamin Study Research Group. Prevention of neural tube defects: results of the Medical Research Council vitamin study. Lancet 338, 131–137 (1991).
Arnold, J. A. Myelocyste, transposition von gewebskeimen und sympodie. Beitr. Pathol. Anat. 16, 1–28 (1894).
MATHGoogle Scholar
Chiari, H. Uber veränderungen des kleinhirns infolge von hydrocephalie des grosshirns. Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr. 17, 1172–1175 (1891).
Google Scholar
Wilde, J. J., Petersen, J. R. & Niswander, L. Genetic, epigenetic, and environmental contributions to neural tube closure. Annu. Rev. Genet. 48, 583–611 (2014).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. O. & Evans, K. Spina bifida and anencephalus in greater London. J. Med. Genet. 10, 209–234 (1973).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Zhang, T. et al. Genetic variants in the folate pathway and the risk of neural tube defects: a meta-analysis of the published literature. PLoS ONE 8, e59570 (2013).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lei, Y. et al. Identification of novel CELSR1 mutations in spina bifida. PLoS ONE 9, e92207 (2014).
ADSPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Kibar, Z. et al. Mutations in VANGL1 associated with neural-tube defects. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 1432–1437 (2007).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Morrison, K. et al. Genetic mapping of the human homologue (T) of mouse T (Brachyury) and a search for allele association between human T and spina bifida. Hum. Mol. Genet. 5, 669–674 (1996).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L. E., Etheredge, A. J., Brown, K. S., Mitchell, L. E. & Whitehead, A. S. Maternal genotype for the monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 A(-2518)G promoter polymorphism is associated with the risk of spina bifida in offspring. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 140, 1114–1118 (2006).
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Iossifov, I. et al. The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature 515, 216–221 (2014).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Zaidi, S. et al. De novo mutations in histone-modifying genes in congenital heart disease. Nature 498, 220–223 (2013).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Lemay, P. et al. Loss-of-function de novo mutations play an important role in severe human neural tube defects. J. Med. Genet. 52, 493–497 (2015).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Fischbach, G. D. & Lord, C. The Simons Simplex Collection: a resource for identification of autism genetic risk factors. Neuron 68, 192–195 (2010).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Rahbari, R. et al. Timing, rates and spectra of human germline mutation. Nat. Genet. 48, 126–133 (2016).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Kessler, M. D. et al. De novo mutations across 1,465 diverse genomes reveal mutational insights and reductions in the Amish founder population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2560–2569 (2020).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Besenbacher, S. et al. Novel variation and de novo mutation rates in population-wide de novo assembled Danish trios. Nat. Commun. 6, 5969 (2015).
ADSCASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Frome, E. L. The analysis of rates using Poisson regression models. Biometrics 39, 665–674 (1983).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Willsey, A. J. et al. De novo coding variants are strongly associated with Tourette disorder. Neuron 94, 486–499 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Dong, C. et al. Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies. Hum. Mol. Genet. 24, 2125–2137 (2015).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Kong, A. et al. Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature 488, 471–475 (2012).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Goldmann, J. M., Veltman, J. A. & Gilissen, C. De novo mutations reflect development and aging of the human germline. Trends Genet. 35, 828–839 (2019).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Turner, T. N. et al. Genomic patterns of de novo mutation in simplex autism. Cell 171, 710–722 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. et al. A brief report: de novo copy number variants in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Transl. Psychiatry 10, 135 (2020).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Sanders, S. J. et al. Multiple recurrent de novo CNVs, including duplications of the 7q11.23 Williams syndrome region, are strongly associated with autism. Neuron 70, 863–885 (2011).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Hol, F. A. et al. A frameshift mutation in the gene for PAX3 in a girl with spina bifida and mild signs of Waardenburg syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 32, 52–56 (1995).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Szklarczyk, D. et al. The STRING database in 2023: protein–protein association networks and functional enrichment analyses for any sequenced genome of interest. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D638–D646 (2023).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Cowen, L., Ideker, T., Raphael, B. J. & Sharan, R. Network propagation: a universal amplifier of genetic associations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 551–562 (2017).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. J. & Juriloff, D. M. An update to the list of mouse mutants with neural tube closure defects and advances toward a complete genetic perspective of neural tube closure. Birth Defects Res. A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 88, 653–669 (2010).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Traag, V. A., Waltman, L. & van Eck, N. J. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Sci. Rep. 9, 5233 (2019).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Rolo, A., Escuin, S., Greene, N. D. E. & Copp, A. J. Rho GTPases in mammalian spinal neural tube closure. Small GTPases 9, 283–289 (2018).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wallingford, J. B., Niswander, L. A., Shaw, G. M. & Finnell, R. H. The continuing challenge of understanding, preventing, and treating neural tube defects. Science 339, 1222002 (2013).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Niederkofler, V., Salie, R., Sigrist, M. & Arber, S. Repulsive guidance molecule (RGM) gene function is required for neural tube closure but not retinal topography in the mouse visual system. J. Neurosci. 24, 808–818 (2004).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Kee, N., Wilson, N., Key, B. & Cooper, H. M. Netrin-1 is required for efficient neural tube closure. Dev. Neurobiol. 73, 176–187 (2013).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Greene, N. D., Stanier, P. & Moore, G. E. The emerging role of epigenetic mechanisms in the etiology of neural tube defects. Epigenetics 6, 875–883 (2011).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Akimova, D. et al. Metabolite profiling of whole murine embryos reveals metabolic perturbations associated with maternal valproate-induced neural tube closure defects. Birth Defects Res. 109, 106–119 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Copp, A. J., Stanier, P. & Greene, N. D. Neural tube defects: recent advances, unsolved questions, and controversies. Lancet Neurol. 12, 799–810 (2013).
PubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Schaar, B. T. & McConnell, S. K. Cytoskeletal coordination during neuronal migration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 13652–13657 (2005).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Dent, E. W., Gupton, S. L. & Gertler, F. B. The growth cone cytoskeleton in axon outgrowth and guidance. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 3, a001800 (2011).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Geelen, J. A. & Langman, J. Closure of the neural tube in the cephalic region of the mouse embryo. Anat. Rec. 189, 625–640 (1977).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Rolo, A. et al. Regulation of cell protrusions by small GTPases during fusion of the neural folds. eLife 5, e13273 (2016).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Hamosh, A., Scott, A. F., Amberger, J. S., Bocchini, C. A. & McKusick, V. A. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D514–D517 (2005).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jin, S. C. et al. Contribution of rare inherited and de novo variants in 2,871 congenital heart disease probands. Nat. Genet. 49, 1593–1601 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Halvorsen, M. et al. De novo mutations in childhood cases of sudden unexplained death that disrupt intracellular Ca2+ regulation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2115140118 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Li, W. et al. De novo mutations contributes approximately 7% of pathogenicity in inherited eye diseases. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 64, 5 (2023).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I. & Pritchard, J. K. An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell 169, 1177–1186 (2017).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Lemos, M. C. et al. Genetic background influences embryonic lethality and the occurrence of neural tube defects in Men1 null mice: relevance to genetic modifiers. J. Endocrinol. 203, 133–142 (2009).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Momb, J. et al. Deletion of Mthfd1l causes embryonic lethality and neural tube and craniofacial defects in mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 549–554 (2013).
ADSCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z. et al. Threshold for neural tube defect risk by accumulated singleton loss-of-function variants. Cell Res. 28, 1039–1041 (2018).
ADSPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Bassuk, A. G. et al. Copy number variation analysis implicates the cell polarity gene glypican 5 as a human spina bifida candidate gene. Hum. Mol. Genet. 22, 1097–1111 (2013).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rendeli, C. et al. Assessment of health status in children with spina bifida. Spinal Cord 43, 230–235 (2005).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Dimitromanolakis, A., Paterson, A. D. & Sun, L. Fast and accurate shared segment detection and relatedness estimation in un-phased genetic data via TRUFFLE. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105, 78–88 (2019).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. et al. Mutalisk: a web-based somatic MUTation AnaLyIS toolKit for genomic, transcriptional and epigenomic signatures. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, W102–W108 (2018).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841–842 (2010).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, N. M. et al. REVEL: An ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 99, 877–885 (2016).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Jaganathan, K. et al. Predicting splicing from primary sequence with deep learning. Cell 176, 535–548 (2019).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Giacopuzzi, E., Popitsch, N. & Taylor, J. C. GREEN-DB: a framework for the annotation and prioritization of non-coding regulatory variants from whole-genome sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, 2522–2535 (2022).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Suvakov, M., Panda, A., Diesh, C., Holmes, I. & Abyzov, A. CNVpytor: a tool for copy number variation detection and analysis from read depth and allele imbalance in whole-genome sequencing. Gigascience 10, giab074 (2021).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. et al. Manta: rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics 32, 1220–1222 (2016).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Rausch, T. et al. DELLY: structural variant discovery by integrated paired-end and split-read analysis. Bioinformatics 28, i333–i339 (2012).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Chen, K. H., Boettiger, A. N., Moffitt, J. R., Wang, S. & Zhuang, X. RNA imaging. Spatially resolved, highly multiplexed RNA profiling in single cells. Science 348, aaa6090 (2015).
PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Delile, J. et al. Single cell transcriptomics reveals spatial and temporal dynamics of gene expression in the developing mouse spinal cord. Development 146, dev173807 (2019).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Soldatov, R. et al. Spatiotemporal structure of cell fate decisions in murine neural crest. Science 364, eaas9536 (2019).
CASPubMedMATHGoogle Scholar
Simões-Costa, M. & Bronner, M. E. Establishing neural crest identity: a gene regulatory recipe. Development 142, 242–257 (2015).
PubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Wolf, F. A., Angerer, P. & Theis, F. J. SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis. Genome Biol. 19, 15 (2018).
PubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Komatsu, N. et al. Development of an optimized backbone of FRET biosensors for kinases and GTPases. Mol. Biol. Cell 22, 4647–4656 (2011).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, S. B. et al. Mapping the common gene networks that underlie related diseases. Nat. Protoc. 18, 1745–1759 (2023).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. K. et al. Systematic evaluation of molecular networks for discovery of disease genes. Cell Syst. 6, 484–495 (2018).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Duman, R. S., Sanacora, G. & Krystal, J. H. Altered connectivity in depression: GABA and glutamate neurotransmitter deficits and reversal by novel treatments. Neuron 102, 75–90 (2019).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Tolias, K. F. et al. The Rac1-GEF Tiam1 couples the NMDA receptor to the activity-dependent development of dendritic arbors and spines. Neuron 45, 525–538 (2005).
CASPubMedGoogle Scholar
Duman, J. G. et al. The adhesion-GPCR BAI1 shapes dendritic arbors via Bcr-mediated RhoA activation causing late growth arrest. eLife 8, e47566 (2019).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Henrie, H. et al. Stress-induced phosphorylation of CLIP-170 by JNK promotes microtubule rescue. J. Cell Biol. 219, e201909093 (2020).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Abramson, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500 (2024).
ADSCASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Adasme, M. F. et al. PLIP 2021: expanding the scope of the protein–ligand interaction profiler to DNA and RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W530–W534 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Santos-Martins, D. et al. Accelerating AutoDock4 with GPUs and gradient-based local search. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 1060–1073 (2021).
CASPubMedPubMed CentralMATHGoogle Scholar
Sive, H., Grainger, R. M. & Harland, R. M. Early Development of Xenopus laevis: A Laboratory Manual (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2000).
Download references
Acknowledgements
We thank the individuals with meningomyelocele and their families who participated in this study; K. James, R. George, B. Copeland, V. Stanley, C. Shen and J. Venneri from the Spina Bifida Sequencing Consortium for recruitment and data technical support; staff at the UCSD Laboratory for Pediatric Brain Disease for clinical and technical support; B. Rosenthal and K. Fisch for statistical modelling; staff at the Broad Institute, the Yale Genetic Center, the Regeneron Genetics Center, the UCSD Institute for Genomic Medicine, the UC Irvine Sequencing Center and the Rady Children Institute for Genomics Medicine for sequencing support; B. Craddock for functional analysis of TNK2; and the Spina Bifida Association for recruitment. This work was supported by the Center for Inherited Disease Research (grant HHSN268201700006I), the Yale Center for Genomic Analysis, the Broad Institute, the UC Irvine Genomics Core, the UCSD Institute for Genomic Medicine, the UCSD Imaging Core (grants X01HD100698, X01HD110998, HD114132, P01HD104436 and U54OD030187); the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Dickinson Foundation and Rady’s Children Institute for Genomic Medicine to J.G.G.; the National Research Foundation of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) (RS-2023-00278314) and the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (RS-2024-00438443, RS-2024-00405260), to Y.-J.J.H. and S.K.; the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF) of Egypt (33650) with ethical approval 20105 to M.M.N., A.M.S.S., MY.I., and a VA Merit Award (I01 BX006248) to W.T.M.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA
Yoo-Jin Jiny Ha, Ashna Nisal, Isaac Tang, Ishani Jhamb, Cassidy Wallace, Robyn Howarth, Sarah Schroeder, Keng loi Vong, Naomi Meave, Fiza Jiwani, Chelsea Barrows, Sangmoon Lee, Nan Jiang, Arzoo Patel, Krisha Bagga, Niyati Banka, Liana Friedman, Hui Su Jeong, Stephen F. Kingsmore & Joseph G. Gleeson
Department of Neurosciences and Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
Yoo-Jin Jiny Ha, Ashna Nisal, Isaac Tang, Ishani Jhamb, Cassidy Wallace, Robyn Howarth, Sarah Schroeder, Keng loi Vong, Naomi Meave, Fiza Jiwani, Chelsea Barrows, Sangmoon Lee, Nan Jiang, Arzoo Patel, Krisha Bagga, Niyati Banka, Liana Friedman, Hui Su Jeong & Joseph G. Gleeson
Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Yoo-Jin Jiny Ha & Sangwoo Kim
Graduate School of Medical Science, Brain Korea 21 Project, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Yoo-Jin Jiny Ha, Seyoung Yu, Heon Yung Gee & Sangwoo Kim
Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Chanjae Lee & John B. Wallingford
Department of Neuroscience, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
Francisco A. Blanco & Kimberley F. Tolias
Department of Pharmacology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Seyoung Yu & Heon Yung Gee
Department of Systems Biology, College of Life Science and Biotechnology, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Soeun Rhee & Donghyuk Shin
Department of Health Sciences and Technology, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hui Su Jeong & Ji Eun Lee
Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
Isaac Plutzer & Michael B. Major
INSERM UMR-S 1193, UFR de Pharmacie, University Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France
Béatrice Benoit & Christian Poüs
Biochimie-Hormonologie, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris Université Paris-Saclay, Clamart, France
Christian Poüs
The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA
Caleb Heffner & Stephen A. Murray
Department of Neurosciences, Research Center of CHU Sainte Justine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Zoha Kibar
Neurosurgery Division, Department of Surgery, Jos University Teaching Hospital, Jos, Nigeria
Gyang Markus Bot
Department of Pediatrics, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
Hope Northrup, Kit Sing Au & Kit Sing Au
Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Madison Strain, Allison E. Ashley-Koch & Allison E. Ashley Koch
Center for Precision Environmental Health, Departments of Molecular and Human Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology and Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
Richard H. Finnell
Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, CA, USA
Joan T. Le, Hal S. Meltzer, Hal S. Meltzer, Joan T. Le & David D. Gonda
Department of Surgery and Anatomy, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
Camila Araujo, Helio R. Machado & Camila Araújo
J. C. Self Research Institute of Human Genetics, Greenwood Genetic Center, Greenwood, SC, USA
Roger E. Stevenson
Catedrática de Ciencias Ómicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Francisco Marroquín, Guatemala City, Guatemala
Anna Yurrita
National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Sara Mumtaz
University of Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile
Awais Ahmed
Children’s Hospital, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan
Mulazim Hussain Khara
Department of Genetics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
Osvaldo M. Mutchinick
Clínica Santa Sofia, Caracas, Venezuela
José Ramón Medina-Bereciartu
Division of Nephrology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Friedhelm Hildebrandt
Department of Pediatrics, MediClubGeorgia Medical Center, Tbilisi, Georgia
Gia Melikishvili
Division of Pediatric General, Thoracic and Fetal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA
Ahmed I. Marwan
Genomics and Clinical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
Valeria Capra
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt
Mahmoud M. Noureldeen & Aida M. S. Salem
Clinical Genetics Department, Human Genetics and Genome Research Institute, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
Mahmoud Y. Issa & Maha S. Zaki
Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Libin Xu
Regeneron Genetics Center, Tarrytown, NY, USA
Anna Alkelai & Alan R. Shuldiner
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
W. Todd Miller
VA Medical Center, Northport, NY, USA
W. Todd Miller
POSTECH Biotechnology Center, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang, Republic of Korea
Sangwoo Kim
Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
Philip J. Lupo
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Tony Magana
Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Caroline M. Kolvenbach & Shirlee Shril
NHO Shizuoka Institute of Epilepsy and Neurological Disorders, Shizuoka, Japan
Yukitoshi Takahashi
Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Hormos Salimi-Dafsari
Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
H. Westley Phillips
Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Orange, CA, USA
Brian Hanak
Department of Child Health and Diseases, Department of Child Neurology, Umuttepe Campus, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
Bülent Kara & Ayfer Sakarya Güneş
Division of Woman and Child Health, Human Development Program, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
Salman Kirmani
Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Tinatin Tkemaladze
Authors
Yoo-Jin Jiny Ha
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. Ashna Nisal
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
3. Isaac Tang
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. Chanjae Lee
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
5. Ishani Jhamb
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
6. Cassidy Wallace
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. Robyn Howarth
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. Sarah Schroeder
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
9. Keng loi Vong
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
10. Naomi Meave
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
11. Fiza Jiwani
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
12. Chelsea Barrows
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. Sangmoon Lee
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
14. Nan Jiang
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
15. Arzoo Patel
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
16. Krisha Bagga
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
17. Niyati Banka
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
18. Liana Friedman
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
19. Francisco A. Blanco
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
20. Seyoung Yu
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
21. Soeun Rhee
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
22. Hui Su Jeong
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
23. Isaac Plutzer
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
24. Michael B. Major
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
25. Béatrice Benoit
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
26. Christian Poüs
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
27. Caleb Heffner
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
28. Zoha Kibar
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
29. Gyang Markus Bot
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. Hope Northrup
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
31. Kit Sing Au
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
32. Madison Strain
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. Allison E. Ashley-Koch
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
34. Richard H. Finnell
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
35. Joan T. Le
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
36. Hal S. Meltzer
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. Camila Araujo
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
38. Helio R. Machado
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
39. Roger E. Stevenson
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
40. Anna Yurrita
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
41. Sara Mumtaz
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
42. Awais Ahmed
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
43. Mulazim Hussain Khara
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
44. Osvaldo M. Mutchinick
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
45. José Ramón Medina-Bereciartu
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
46. Friedhelm Hildebrandt
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
47. Gia Melikishvili
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
48. Ahmed I. Marwan
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
49. Valeria Capra
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
50. Mahmoud M. Noureldeen
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
51. Aida M. S. Salem
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
52. Mahmoud Y. Issa
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
53. Maha S. Zaki
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
54. Libin Xu
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
55. Ji Eun Lee
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
56. Donghyuk Shin
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
57. Anna Alkelai
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
58. Alan R. Shuldiner
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
59. Stephen F. Kingsmore
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
60. Stephen A. Murray
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
61. Heon Yung Gee
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
62. W. Todd Miller
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
63. Kimberley F. Tolias
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
64. John B. Wallingford
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
65. Sangwoo Kim
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
66. Joseph G. Gleeson
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
Consortia
Spina Bifida Sequencing Consortium
Allison E. Ashley Koch
, Hal S. Meltzer
, Joan T. Le
, Kit Sing Au
, Hope Northrup
, Gyang Markus Bot
, Valeria Capra
, Richard H. Finnell
, Zoha Kibar
, Philip J. Lupo
, Helio R. Machado
, Camila Araújo
, Tony Magana
, Ahmed I. Marwan
, Gia Melikishvili
, Osvaldo M. Mutchinick
, Roger E. Stevenson
, Anna Yurrita
, Maha S. Zaki
, Sara Mumtaz
, José Ramón Medina-Bereciartu
, Caroline M. Kolvenbach
, Shirlee Shril
, Friedhelm Hildebrandt
, Mahmoud M. Noureldeen
, Aida M. S. Salem
, Yukitoshi Takahashi
, Hormos Salimi-Dafsari
, H. Westley Phillips
, Brian Hanak
, Bülent Kara
, Ayfer Sakarya Güneş
, David D. Gonda
, Salman Kirmani
, Tinatin Tkemaladze
& Joseph G. Gleeson
Contributions
Y.-J.J.H., C.W., N.M., F.J., K.I.V., C.B., S.S., S.L., N.J., A.P., K.B., N.B. and L.F. recruited subjects and performed genetic analysis. I.J. and R.H. performed the MERFISH analysis. C.L. and J.B.W. generated Xenopus data. A.N., I.T., J.E.L., I.P., M.B.M., F.A.B., K.F.T., S.Y., H.S.J., B.B., W.T.M., C.H., S.A.M., H.Y.G., C.P. and L.X. performed functional analysis; Z.K., G.M.B., H.N., K.S.A., M.S., A.A.-K., R.H.F., J.L., H.M., C.A., H.R.M., R.E.S., A.Y., S.M., A. Ahmed, M.H.K., O.M.M., J.R.M.-B., F.H., G.M., A.I.M., V.C., M.M.N., A.M.S.S., M.Y.I. and M.S.Z. recruited families. A. Alkelai, A.R.S. and S.F.K. performed sequencing. D.S. and S.R. conducted computational prediction. Y.-J.J.H., S.K. and J.G.G. performed analysis, wrote drafts, and incorporated feedback from coauthors.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Sangwoo Kim or Joseph G. Gleeson.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
A. Alkelai and A.R.S. are full-time employees of Regeneron Genetics Center. S.K. is a cofounder of AIMA, which seeks to develop techniques for early cancer diagnosis based on circulating tumour DNA. R.H.F. previously led TeratOmic Consulting, which is now defunct, and received travel funds for Reproductive and Developmental Medicine editorial board meetings.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature thanks Erica Davis and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Power calculation of estimating a cohort size for DNM detection.
Power calculation showing potential number of discovered genes compared with cohort size (350 trios), for two different v values (enrichment ratio of loss of function variants in case versus control) and two different k values (assumed number of risk genes). For instance, if there are 50 genes to discover (k = 50), a cohort of 400 trios will identify 16 genes if LOF variants are 2.5x more common in affected (v = 2.5). All calculations manage a conservative false discovery rate (FDR). Gray dash: FDR.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Spatial expression of DNM genes with MERFISH in E9.5 mouse embryos.
Spatial expression of the MM genes with damaging DNMs. a, Gene expression of marker genes for seven selected cell types (neuron, neural progenitor, pre-epithelial to mesenchymal transition neural crest progenitor (NC progenitor), neural crest, mesoderm, dorsal root ganglia, and blood), in two embryonic replicates. b, Six spatial expression pattern of damaging DNM genes with specific (left) and broad (right) expression. Full MERFISH image of 36 genes can be found in the GitHub (https://github.com/Gleeson-Lab/Publications/tree/main/MM_DNM).
Extended Data Fig. 3 Cell type expression of the DNM genes in MERFISH.
a, Expression at E9.5 of the 36 damaging DNMs in seven cell types: neuron, neural progenitor, pre-epithelial to mesenchymal transition neural crest progenitor (Pre-EMT-NCP), neural crest, mesoderm, dorsal root ganglia, and blood. Indeterminate refers to the cells that were not specified with the marker genes designed for the seven cell types. b, Expression of marker genes used for specifying the cell types in MERFISH. Marker genes are shown within the cell type category which they represent.
Extended Data Fig. 4 A human protein network constructed with damaging DNMs contributing to MM risk.
By using the 187 damaging MM DNM genes, a propagated network was generated with NetColoc69 with a background protein network PCNet70, incorporating 439 nodes and 2,447 edges. Big blue circle: damaging DNM genes, Small purple circle: propagated gene, green border: known mouse NTD genes. The network is visualized with Cytoscape with STRING database.
Extended Data Fig. 5 H1149P patient mutation impairs TIAM1 activity and PLCE1 patient mutation E623Q leads to diminished GTP-bound RhoA.
a, H1149P mutation is located within the Dbl homology (DH) domain responsible for GEF activity. TIAM1 contains an N-terminal pleckstrin homology (PH), coiled-coiled (CC), extension (Ex), RAS binding (RBD), PDZ, Dbl-homology (DH) and PH domains, with the patient mutation falling within the DH domain. b, Schematic of PLCE1 protein with domains annotated. Patient E623Q mutation is located in the Ras GEF domain. PLCE1 contains a Guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Ras-like small GTPases (RAS GEF), Pleckstrin Homology (PH), Phospholipase C catalytic domain X (PLCX), Phospholipase C catalytic domain Y (PLCY), Protein Kinase C conserved region 2 (C2), RAS association domain 1 (RA1), and RAS association domain 2 (RA2). c, Construct expression H1149P (n = 76) is equivalent to wildtype (n = 85) in Phalloidin quantification. d, Construct expression H1149P in constitutive active (C.A.) (n = 53). Src Rac1 Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) is equivalent to wildtype. P value adjusted with Bonferroni. Kruskal-Wallis followed by a two-sided pairwise Wilcoxon test, P value adjusted with Bonferroni. Data shown with Hampel filter. Error bar: standard error of the mean. P values: ns: not significant. e, Active GTP-bound form of RhoA precipitated from HEK293 expressing Myc-tagged PLCE1 using a GST-rhotekin pulldown assay. Overexpression of WT PLCE1 resulted in a substantial decrease in relative RhoA activity compared with mock cells. Compared to WT, cells transfected with variant forms of PLCE1 exhibited marked differences in GTP-bound RhoA.
Extended Data Fig. 6 The P168L patient mutation impairs TNK2 activity and intronic mutation at the splice acceptor site before exon 47 leads to alternative splicing of DNAH5.
a, P168L mutation is located within the kinase domain. TNK2 contains sterile alpha motif (SAM), Src homology 3 (SH3), CDS42 and RAC-interactive binding (CRIB), Mig6 homology region (MHR), and ubiquitin-associated domain (UBA). b, Blots for the A156T kinase dead, wild-type, and the patient mutation P168L. Lysates were probed with pY284-Ack1 (top), Ack1-flag (middle), and gamma-tubulin (bottom). Repeated independently with similar results four times. Ack1 refers to TNK2. c, TNK2 P168L patient mutation impaired WASP phosphorylation from immunoprecipitation (IP) kinase assay, compared to WT and kinase dead A156T. d, Location of chr5:13807727 T > G patient mutation in DNAH5 gene. e, Primer design for detecting altered splicing in DNAH5 cDNA - pair (i) spanning exons 46–48, pair (ii) spanning exons 46–49 and control pair (iii) spanning exons 1–4. f, RT-PCR results using primers listed in e showing altered splicing for exon 46–48 and 46–49 in patient cDNA, but not in controls.
Extended Data Fig. 7 KDM1A R332C patient mutation and VWA8b patient mutation R230G significantly reduces protein expression levels.
a, Schematic of KDM1A protein domains - R332C patient mutation is located in the amino-oxidase domain of KDM1A protein. b, Protein levels of WT and R332C KDM1A detected by western blot from HEK293T cells transfected with pEGFP-C2-KDM1A WT or R332C plasmids; c, Quantification of GFP-KDM1A band intensities from b normalized with β-actin loading control (n = 3). Bar: median, Error bar: interquartile range. Two-tailed unpaired t test with Welch’s correction, P value * = 0.0316. d, Schematic of protein domains for human VWA8b consisting of NTPase, Walker A (WA), ATP binding, and Walker B (WB) domains and patient mutation R230G in the NTPase domain. e, Protein levels of HA-tagged mVwa8b empty vector (EV), WT and R230 overexpressed in HEK293T cells detected using anti-HA antibody; alpha tubulin used as loading control*.* f, Quantification of HA band intensity from panel b normalized to loading control (n = 3). Bar: mean, Error bar: standard deviation of mean (SEM). one-way ANOVA ****: P value < 0.0001.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Validation of Spen and Mink1 knockdown.
a, Schematics of SPEN and MINK1 protein with domains annotated and patient mutations. RRM, RNA Recognition motif. MINT, Mxs2-interacting protein. SPOC, Spen paralogue and orthologue SPOC. CNH, Citron homology domain. b, Dorsal views of Xenopus laevis embryos subjected to in situ hybridization for Pax3 to visualize the neural folds in Spen morphants. c, RT-PCR confirmed that Spen MO reduced the amount of normally spliced Spen transcript. d. Dorsal views of Xenopus l. embryos subjected to in situ hybridization for Pax3 in Mink1 morphants. e, Validation of Mink1 morpholinos by RT-PCR. c,e, Each experiment was performed independently at least twice with similar results. f, Dorsal views of embryos injected with Spen gRNAs only or gRNAs with Cas9, with the accompanying chromatogram showing Sanger sequencing at the CRISPR target site. Control embryos injected with gRNAs only (#1 and #2) developed normally and exhibited an intact sequence, while embryos injected with Spen gRNAs and Cas9 (#3-#6) displayed neural tube defects and mosaic mutations at the CRISPR target site. g, Dorsal views of embryos injected with Mink1 gRNAs only or Mink1 gRNAs with Cas9, with the accompanying chromatogram showing Sanger sequencing at the CRISPR target site. Mink1 crispants (#2-#4) exhibited neural tube defect phenotypes and mosaic mutations at the CRISPR target site in both the L and S alleles of Mink1.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Validation of Whamm knockdown.
a, Schematics of SPEN and MINK1 protein with domains annotated and patient mutations. JMY, Junction-mediating and WASP homolog-associated domain, JMY_N, N-terminal of JMY. WH2, WASP-homology 2 domain b, The neural tube closure defect phenotype induced by Whamm MO (10 ng) was rescued through the injection of Whamm mRNA (700 pg). Embryos injected only with mRNA showed no significant phenotype. c, Dorsal views of Xenopus embryos at Stage 19, quantified with Pax3 for in situ hybridization to visualize the neural folds. d, Quantification of the average distance between neural folds in Whamm MO with rescue Whamm mRNA. The rescue experiment was repeated independently with similar results, with multiple independent experiments; Control (n = 16), Whamm MO (n = 20), Whamm MO + mRNA (n = 19), mRNA (n = 14). Box plot indicates the median (center line), the interquartile range (bounds of the box), and the whiskers represent the minimum and maximum. P-values by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test: **** < 0.0001, ns: not significant. e, RT-PCR confirmed that Whamm MO reduced the amount of normally spliced Whamm transcript. f, Schematic showing gRNA regions designed to target Whamm gene and primer sites for genotyping. g, Control embryos (#1-#5) developed normally, while crispants (#6-#10) displayed neural tube defects. h, Genotyping in the target area. PCR products from control embryos (#1-#5) are approximately 631 bp, while those from Whamm crispants (#6-#10, except #8) are around 331, indicating a deletion of approximately 300 bp. e,h, Each experiment was performed independently at least twice with similar results. i, Comparison of sequence between control (#4 in panel g is shown) and crispant (#8 in panel g is shown) at the Whamm CRISPR target site. Although the #8 embryo did not exhibit the 300 bp deletion, Sanger sequencing result shows it has mosaic mutations.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Validation of Nostrin knockdown and synergistic effect with Whamm.
a, Schematics of NOSTRIN protein with domains annotated and patient mutations. FCH, Fes/CIP4, and EFC/F-BAR homology domain. F-BAR, Fes/CIP4 homology – Bin-Amphiphysin-Rvs domain. HR1, REM-1 domain. SH3, Src homology 3 domain. b, RT-PCR confirmed that the splice-blocking MO for Nostrin S reduced the amount of normally spliced Nostrin transcript. Experiment was performed independently at least twice with similar results c, Dorsal views of embryos injected with Nostrin gRNAs only or Nostrin gRNAs with Cas9, with the accompanying chromatogram showing Sanger sequencing at the CRISPR target site. Control embryos injected with gRNAs only (#1) developed normally and exhibited intact sequences, while embryos injected with Nostrin gRNAs and Cas9 (#2-#4) displayed neural tube defects and mosaic mutations at the CRISPR target site. d, Neural folds visualized by in situ hybridization for Pax3 in Nostrin splice-blocking MO and/or Wham MO. e, Dorsal views of late neurula embryos injected with Nostrin translation-blocking MO and/or Whamm MO.
Extended Data Table 1 De novo SNV and Indel rates (×10−8) of WGS in coding and noncoding regions
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Damaging DNM genes with functional validation
Full size table
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
This file contains Supplementary Notes, Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Supplementary Figs. 1–9.
Reporting Summary
Peer Review File
Supplementary Data
This file contains the following: MM pedigree information (individual and family identities of each sample described, along with data deposition information); damaging DNMs in MM (information on de novo mutations, including validation status); WGS SNVs and indels with high impact a (list of SNVs and indels detected from WGS with high impact); MERFISH marker genes (markers used for MERFISH, listed with annotated cell types); genes in the propagated network (a list of 439 genes in the MM propagated network); known mouse NTD genes (374 known mouse NTD genes used for the hypergeometric test); submodule enrichment (results of enrichment analysis with the five functional modules); gene pLI scores of the five submodules (pLI scores for genes in the five submodules, annotated as observed DNMs or propagated); and a list of primer sequences used in the study.
Source data
Source Data Figs. 1–4.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Cite this article
Ha, YJ., Nisal, A., Tang, I. et al. The contribution of de novo coding mutations to meningomyelocele. Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08676-x
Download citation
Received:24 February 2024
Accepted:20 January 2025
Published:26 March 2025
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08676-x
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Get shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative