Background: Genetic association studies for gastroschisis have highlighted several candidate variants. However, genetic basis in gastroschisis from noninvestigated heritable factors could provide new insights into the human biology for this birth defect. We aim to identify novel gastroschisis susceptibility variants by employing whole exome sequencing (WES) in a Mexican family with recurrence of gastroschisis.Methods: We employed WES in two affected half‐sisters with gastroschisis, mother, and father of the proband. Additionally, functional bioinformatics analysis was based on SVS–PhoRank and Ensembl–Variant Effect Predictor. The latter assessed the potentially deleterious effects (high, moderate, low, or modifier impact) from exome variants based on SIFT, PolyPhen, dbNSFP, Condel, LoFtool, MaxEntScan, and BLOSUM62 algorithms. The analysis was based on the Human Genome annotation, GRCh37/hg19. Candidate genes were prioritized and manually curated based on significant phenotypic relevance (SVS–PhoRank) and functional properties (Ensembl–Variant Effect Predictor). Functional enrichment analysis was performed using ToppGene Suite, including a manual curation of significant Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes from functional similarity analysis of candidate genes.Results: No single gene‐disrupting variant was identified. Instead, 428 heterozygous variations were identified for which SPATA17, PDE4DIP, CFAP65, ALPP, ZNF717, OR4C3, MAP2K3, TLR8, and UBE2NL were predicted as high impact in both cases, mother, and father of the proband. PLOD1, COL6A3, FGFRL1, HHIP, SGCD, RAPGEF1, PKD1, ZFHX3, BCAS3, EVPL, CEACAM5, and KLK14 were segregated among both cases and mother. Multiple interacting background modifiers may regulate gastroschisis susceptibility. These candidate genes highlight a role for development of blood vessel, circulatory system, muscle structure, epithelium, and epidermis, regulation of cell junction assembly, biological/cell adhesion, detection/response to endogenous stimulus, regulation of cytokine biosynthetic process, response to growth factor, postreplication repair/protein K63‐linked ubiquitination, protein‐containing complex assembly, and regulation of transcription DNA‐templated.Conclusion: Considering the likely gene‐disrupting prediction results and similar biological pattern of mechanisms, we propose a joint “multifactorial model” in gastroschisis pathogenesis.

We investigated whether likely pathogenic variants co-segregating with gastroschisis through a family-based approach using bioinformatic analyses were implicated in body wall closure. Gene Ontology (GO)/Panther functional enrichment and protein-protein interaction analysis by String identified several biological networks of highly connected genes in UGT1A3, UGT1A4, UGT1A5, UGT1A6, UGT1A7, UGT1A8, UGT1A9, UGT1A10, AOX1, NOTCH1, HIST1H2BB, RPS3, THBS1, ADCY9, and FGFR4. SVS–PhoRank identified a dominant model in OR10G4 (also as heterozygous de novo), ITIH3, PLEKHG4B, SLC9A3, ITGA2, AOX1, and ALPP, including a recessive model in UGT1A7, UGT1A6, PER2, PTPRD, and UGT1A3. A heterozygous compound model was observed in CDYL, KDM5A, RASGRP1, MYBPC2, PDE4DIP, F5, OBSCN, and UGT1A. These genes were implicated in pathogenetic pathways involving the following GO related categories: xenobiotic, regulation of metabolic process, regulation of cell adhesion, regulation of gene expression, inflammatory response, regulation of vascular development, keratinization, left-right symmetry, epigenetic, ubiquitination, and regulation of protein synthesis. Multiple background modifiers interacting with disease-relevant pathways may regulate gastroschisis susceptibility. Based in our findings and considering the plausibility of the biological pattern of mechanisms and gene network modeling, we suggest that the gastroschisis developmental process may be the consequence of several well-orchestrated biological and molecular mechanisms which could be interacting with gastroschisis predispositions within the first ten weeks of development.