Search

__Background:__ Patients born with esophageal atresia (EA) have a higher incidence of infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS), suggestive of a relationship. A shared etiology makes sense from a developmental perspective as both affected structures are foregut derived. A genetic component has been described for both conditions as single entities and EA and IHPS are variable components in several monogenetic syndromes. We hypothesized that defects disturbing foregut morphogenesis are responsible for this combination of malformations. __Methods:__ We investigated the genetic variation of 15 patients with both EA and IHPS with unaffected parents using exome sequencing and SNP arraybased genotyping, and compared the results to mouse transcriptome data of the developing foregut. __Results:__ We did not identify putatively deleterious de novo mutations or recessive variants. However, we detected rare inherited variants in EA or IHPS disease genes or in genes important in foregut morphogenesis, expressed at the proper developmental time-points. Two pathways were significantly enriched (p < 1 × 10−5): proliferation and differentiation of smooth muscle cells and self-renewal of satellite cells. __Conclusions:__ None of our findings could fully explain the combination of abnormalities on its own, which makes complex inheritance the most plausible genetic explanation, most likely in combination with mechanical and/or environmental factors. As we did not find one defining monogenetic cause for the EA/IHPS phenotype, the impact of the corrective surgery could should be further investigated.

Patients born with esophageal atresia (EA) have a 30 times higher prevalence of infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS). This makes sense from a developmental perspective as both the esophagus and the pyloric sphincter are foregut derived structures. EA and IHPS are variable features in several (monogenetic) syndromes. This, and twin and familial studies, indicates a genetic component for both conditions as single entities. We hypothesized that genetic defects, disturbing foregut morphogenesis, are responsible for this combination of malformations. Non-genetic factors could also contribute, as mice exposed to Adriamycin develop EA andin uterodiethylstilbestrol exposure is associated with EA.We investigated the copy number profiles and protein coding variants of 15 patients with both EA and IHPS. As all parents were unaffected, we first considered dominant(de novo)or recessive inheritance models but could not identify putatively deleterious mutations or recessive variants. We did identify inherited variants in genes either known to be involved in EA or IHPS or important in foregut morphogenesis in all patients. Unfortunately, variant burden analysis did not show a significant difference with unaffected controls. However, the IHPS associated risk SNP rs1933683 had a significantly higher incidence (OR 3.29, p=0.009).Although the genetic variation in likely candidate genes as well as the predisposing locus nearBARX1(rs1933683) suggest a genetic component, it does not fully explain the abnormalities seen in these patients. Therefore, we hypothesize that a combination of high impact genetic, mechanical and environmental factors together can shift the balance to abnormal development.Summary statementInstead of one affected gene, the higher incidence of IHPS in EA patients is more likely the result of multiple (epi)genetic and environmental factors together shifting the balance to disease development.