Variations in the form of the human face, which plays a role in our individual identities and societal interactions, have fascinated scientists and artists alike. Here, we review our current understanding of the genetics underlying variation in craniofacial morphology and disease-associated dysmorphology, synthesizing decades of progress on Mendelian syndromes in addition to more recent results from genome-wide association studies of human facial shape and disease risk. We also discuss the various approaches used to phenotype and quantify facial shape, which are of particular importance due to the complex, multipartite nature of the craniofacial form. We close by discussing how experimental studies have contributed and will further contribute to our understanding of human genetic variation and then proposing future directions and applications for the field.

Many factors influence human facial morphology, including genetics, age, nutrition, biomechanical forces, and endocrine factors. Moreover, facial features clearly differ between males and females, and these differences are driven primarily by the influence of sex hormones during growth and development. Specific genetic variants are known to influence circulating sex hormone levels in humans, which we hypothesize, in turn, affect facial features. In this study, we investigated the effects of testosterone-related genetic variants on facial morphology. We tested 32 genetic variants across 22 candidate genes related to levels of testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHGB) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) in three cohorts of healthy individuals for which 3D facial surface images were available (Pittsburgh 3DFN, Penn State and ALSPAC cohorts; total n = 7418). Facial shape was described using a recently developed extension of the dense-surface correspondence approach, in which the 3D facial surface was partitioned into a set of 63 hierarchically organized modules. Each variant was tested against each of the facial surface modules in a multivariate genetic association-testing framework and meta-analyzed. Additionally, the association between these candidate SNPs and five facial ratios was investigated in the Pittsburgh 3DFN cohort. Two significant associations involving intronic variants of SHBG were found: both rs12150660 (p = 1.07E-07) and rs1799941 (p = 6.15E-06) showed an effect on mandible shape. Rs8023580 (an intronic variant of NR2F2-AS1) showed an association with the total and upper facial width to height ratios (p = 9.61E-04 and p = 7.35E-04, respectively). These results indicate that testosterone-related genetic variants affect normal-range facial morphology, and in particular, facial features known to exhibit strong sexual dimorphism in humans.

The analysis of contemporary genomic data typically operates on one-dimensional phenotypic measurements (e.g. standing height). Here we report on a data-driven, family-informed strategy to facial phenotyping that searches for biologically relevant traits and reduces multivariate 3D facial shape variability into amendable univariate measurements, while preserving its structurally complex nature. We performed a biometric identification of siblings in a sample of 424 children, defining 1,048 sib-shared facial traits. Subsequent quantification and analyses in an independent European cohort (n = 8,246) demonstrated significant heritability for a subset of traits (0.17–0.53) and highlighted 218 genome-wide significant loci (38 also study-wide) associated with facial variation shared by siblings. These loci showed preferential enrichment for active chromatin marks in cranial neural crest cells and embryonic craniofacial tissues and several regions harbor putative craniofacial genes, thereby enhancing our knowledge on the genetic architecture of normal-range facial variation.

Facial morphology is highly variable, both within and among human populations, and a sizable portion of this variation is attributable to genetics. Previous genome scans have revealed more than 100 genetic loci associated with different aspects of normal-range facial variation. Most of these loci have been detected in Europeans, with few studies focusing on other ancestral groups. Consequently, the degree to which facial traits share a common genetic basis across diverse sets of humans remains largely unknown. We therefore investigated the genetic basis of facial morphology in an East African cohort. We applied an open-ended data-driven phenotyping approach to a sample of 2,595 3D facial images collected on Tanzanian children. This approach segments the face into hierarchically arranged, multivariate features that capture the shape variation after adjusting for age, sex, height, weight, facial size and population stratification. Genome scans of these multivariate shape phenotypes revealed significant (p < 2.5 × 10⁻⁸) signals at 20 loci, which were enriched for active chromatin elements in human cranial neural crest cells and embryonic craniofacial tissue, consistent with an early developmental origin of the facial variation. Two of these associations were in highly conserved regions showing craniofacial-specific enhancer activity during embryological development (5q31.1 and 12q21.31). Six of the 20 loci surpassed a stricter threshold accounting for multiple phenotypes with study-wide significance (p < 6.25 × 10⁻¹⁰). Cross-population comparisons indicated 10 association signals were shared with Europeans (seven sharing the same associated SNP), and facilitated fine-mapping of causal variants at previously reported loci. Taken together, these results may point to both shared and population-specific components to the genetic architecture of facial variation.

As technology advances and collaborations grow, our ability to finely quantify and explore morphological variation in 3D structures can enable important discoveries and insights into clinical, evolutionary, and genetic questions. However, it is critical to explore and understand the relative contribution of potential sources of error to the structures under study. In this study, we isolated the level of error in 3D facial images attributable to four sources, using the 3dMDface and Vectra H1 camera systems. When the two camera systems are used separately to image human participants, this analysis finds an upper bound of error potentially introduced by the use of the 3dMDface or Vectra H1 camera systems, in conjunction with the MeshMonk registration toolbox, at 0.44 mm and 0.40 mm, respectively. For studies using both camera systems, this upper bound increases to 0.85 mm, on average, and there are systematic differences in the representation of the eyelids, nostrils, and mouth by the two camera systems. Our results highlight the need for careful assessment of potential sources of error in 3D images, both in terms of magnitude and position, especially when dealing with very small measurements or performing many tests.