Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0241898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241898

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

Mariana Bezamat 1, Juliana F Souza 2, Fernanda M F Silva 3, Emilly G Corrêa 4, Aluhe L Fatturi 2, João A Brancher 5, Flávia M Carvalho 6, Tayla Cavallari 4, Laís Bertolazo 4, Cleber Machado-Souza 7, Mine Koruyucu 8, Merve Bayram 9, Andrea Racic 1, Benjamin M Harrison 1, Yan Y Sweat 10, Ariadne Letra 11, Deborah Studen-Pavlovich 12, Figen Seymen 8, Brad Amendt 10, Renata I Werneck 4, Marcelo C Costa 3, Adriana Modesto 12, Alexandre R Vieira 1,*
Editor: JJ Cray Jr13
PMCID: PMC7787379  PMID: 33406080

Abstract

Molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) is an enamel condition characterized by lesions ranging in color from white to brown which present rapid caries progression, and mainly affects permanent first molars and incisors. These enamel defects usually occur when there are disturbances during the mineralization or maturation stage of amelogenesis. Both genetic and environmental factors have been suggested to play roles in MIH’s development, but no conclusive risk factors have shown the source of the disease. During head and neck development, the interferon regulatory factor 6 (IRF6) gene is involved in the structure formation of the oral and maxillofacial regions, and the transforming growth factor alpha (TGFA) is an essential cell regulator, acting during proliferation, differentiation, migration and apoptosis. In this present study, it was hypothesized that these genes interact and contribute to predisposition of MIH. Environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older were also hypothesized to play a role in the disease etiology. Those factors included respiratory issues, malnutrition, food intolerance, infection of any sort and medication intake. A total of 1,065 salivary samples from four different cohorts were obtained, and DNA was extracted from each sample and genotyped for nine different single nucleotide polymorphisms. Association tests and logistic regression implemented in PLINK were used for analyses. A potential interaction between TGFA rs930655 with all markers tested in the cohort from Turkey was identified. These interactions were not identified in the remaining cohorts. Associations (p<0.05) between the use of medication after three years of age and MIH were also found, suggesting that conditions acquired at the age children start to socialize might contribute to the development of MIH.

Introduction

The hardest biological material in the human body is tooth enamel, composed of both mineral and organic phases [1]. Disturbances during amelogenesis impact maturation or mineralization stages, and can lead to defects in enamel translucence, known as enamel hypomineralization [2]. Molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) is an example of an enamel condition, and is characterized by the appearance of lesions ranging from white to brownish coloration which present rapid caries progression and hypersensitivity [3]. These asymmetrical lesions affect the first permanent molars, usually with the permanent incisors [4], and more recently MIH has been reported to affect canines too [5]. Prevalence of MIH varies but has been consistently reported to range between 1% and 35% in all parts of the world, with most reported frequencies around 12% [622].

Regarding the timing of these lesions’ appearance, reports have shown a variation in the chronology of crown completion and enamel formation of incisors and molars. Gleiser and Hunt documented crown completion of first permanent molars to be between 2.5 and 4.4 years [23]. Boyde reported the chronological age of enamel completion in the upper central incisor as 4.64 years and Reid documented complete crown formation in lower central incisors to be at 3.8 years [24].

The enamel maturation stage is particularly important for tissue development, and a very sensitive stage in terms of hypomineralized enamel dysplasia [25].

Different systematic reviews concluded that most of the previously studied environmental factors that were believed to be risk factors for MIH did not fully explain the disease etiology [5, 26, 27]. In contrast, etiological factors associated with enamel forming genes [2, 28] or in immune response-related genes [28, 29] have been reported to play a role in the condition’s onset.

Over the past few years, our group has focused on studying different phenotypes that may be present in the same individuals with the hypothesis that they may be influenced by the same underlying genetic variation [30]. Conditions such as cleft lip and palate, have shown an increased frequency of abnormal tooth sizes and morphology [31]. Furthermore, this work has shown that the frequency of dental anomalies as a consequence of disturbances in dental development was much higher in individuals born with clefts, indicating that dental phenotypes should be considered an extended phenotype of oral clefts [32]. Later, it was also shown that IRF6 and TGFA interaction might contribute to oral clefts [33], and that genetic associations for MIH can be identified when studied in combination with cleft lip and palate [34]. IRF6 is a gene involved in the structure formation of the oral and maxillofacial regions and has been documented as responsible for not only influence amelogenesis, but also play a role in root and crown anomalies of first molars in mice [35]. This same study showed that irf6 conditional knockout mouse presented reduced enamel density preeruption and delayed enamel formation [35]. TGFA on the other hand, is an essential cell regulator, acting during proliferation, differentiation, migration and apoptosis. TGFA has also been associated with orofacial clefts [36], and a previous study using the case-parent trio design raised the possibility that IRF6 and TGFA interact and lead to orofacial clefts [37], supporting the finding from our group [33].

In light of the aforementioned evidence, it was hypothesized that IRF6 and TGFA interact and contribute to predisposition of MIH. Additionally, it was hypothesized that environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older could play a role in the etiology of the disease. Those factors included the presence of any respiratory issues, malnutrition, any type of food intolerance, infection of any sort, and the use of any type of medication.

Results

One thousand and sixty-five individuals from both Brazilian and Turkish cohorts were analyzed. All four cohorts are described in detail in the (S1S4 Files) and a breakdown of the populations included in the study is described in Table 1. All markers were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (PLINK threshold p-value bellow 0.001), with the exception of rs930655 in the sample from Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná), that was excluded from further analysis (Table 2). It was also excluded rs2073487, rs642961 and rs2902345 in the sample from Rio de Janeiro, and rs1523305 and rs2902345 in the sample from Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná). The numbers in bold in Table 2 highlight the distribution of the genotypes deviating from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Table 1. Breakdown of populations used in the study.

Population Total Sample MIH Affected MIH Unaffected Sex
Male Female
Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná, Brazil) 356 87 269 187 169
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Brazil) 200 100 100 92 108
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 174 78 96 101 73
Istanbul, Turkey 355 163 172 171 164
Total 1,065 428 637 551 514

Table 2. Characteristics of the selected variants and genotyping frequencies.

Gene SNP marker Base change Consequence Population Genotyping Calls
MIH Affected MIH Unaffected
IRF6 rs2073487 T>C Intron variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 14/40/32 52/118/88
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 20/43/28 15/42/38
Rio de Janeiro 5/6/55 11/11/56
Istanbul 15/56/75 21/70/80
rs2013162 A>C Synonymous variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 16/41/29 51/121/88
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 12/63/21 11/49/35
Rio de Janeiro 4/14/33 2/10/50
Istanbul 16/54/73 23/68/81
rs17015215 C>T Missense variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 0/21/62 5/38/209
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) Not genotyped
Rio de Janeiro 6/18/30 5/33/24
Istanbul 2/3/130 1/7/144
rs861019 A>G Intron variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 15/37/35 41/120/97
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 11/42/31 11/49/26
Rio de Janeiro 9/35/13 10/33/15
Istanbul 34/70/42 38/69/42
rs642961 A>G None Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 4/21/61 7/70/184
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 8/23/65 7/21/68
Rio de Janeiro 3/39/31 2/53/33
Istanbul 5/43/99 5/36/105
TGFA rs2902345 T>C Intron variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 10/42/30 59/102/90
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 20/7/52 21/12/47
Rio de Janeiro 19/15/36 11/19/45
Istanbul 42/62/47 38/60/54
rs2166975 G>A Synonymous variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 2/29/56 20/72/164
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 7/19/74 8/20/71
Rio de Janeiro Not genotyped
Istanbul 9/38/98 7/62/98
rs1523305 C>T Intron variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 13/51/22 66/106/86
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 24/8/53 28/10/53
Rio de Janeiro 9/21/35 7/22/61
Istanbul 43/57/43 40/62/46
rs930655 A>G Intron variant Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) 11/31/44 61/60/136
Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná) 18/48/32 10/50/34
Rio de Janeiro Not genotyped
Istanbul 9/39/98 9/54/82

Bold indicates figures deviating from Hardy-Weinberg.

Single marker analysis

No significant associations between the selected SNPs and MIH were detected in the study populations.

Gene-gene interaction analyses

The cohort from Rio de Janeiro showed a trend toward statistical evidence of interaction between TGFA rs1523305 and IRF6 rs642961 (p = 0.03, OR = 1.77) and between IRF6 rs2073487 and TGFA rs2902345 (p = 0.04, OR = 1.60). Significant results (p<0.0004) were found for the cohort from Istanbul between TGFA rs930655 and all IRF6 markers (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary results of gene-gene interaction analysis between TGFA rs930655 and the other IRF6 markers in the samples from Istanbul.

The odds of the less common allele of TGFA rs930655 in addition to the IRF6 marker allele to increase the chance of MIH to occur.

SNP Allele Prevalence Ratio (95% confidence interval) p-value
rs17015215 T 1.33 (1.25–1.42) 2.603e-016
rs2013162 A 1.25 (1.16–1.34) 2.992e-019
rs861019 A 1.34 (1.26–1.42) 1.379e-016
rs2073487 C 1.24 (1.16–1.34) 8.509e-019
rs642961 A 1.39 (1.31–1.47) 1.842e-015

Gene expression analysis

It was investigated the localization of Tgfa and Irf6 in wild type mice at critical stages of dental development. It was observed expression of Irf6 in ameloblasts, apparently more membrane-bound than cytoplasmic or nuclear, whereas expression of Tgfa was not observed (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Expression of Irf6 and Tgfa in sagittal sections of E16.5 wild type murine embryos.

Fig 1

Irf6 is expressed in ameloblasts (AM) but not odontoblasts (OD), whereas Tgfa expression was not detected.

Environmental factors

Associations were identified between MIH and any type of medications taken at three years of age (Table 4). This variable was designed to capture medication used early in life. In this analysis MIH was used as the dependent variable and medication intake as the independent variable. In the Curitiba cohort (Federal University of Paraná), out of 191 individuals who reported having taken medications, 52 were affected by MIH and 139 were not. In contrast, out of 166 individuals who reported not taking any medications, 36 were affected with MIH and 130 were not. In the cohort from Rio de Janeiro, 35 individuals reported having taken medications and were affected by MIH, 15 reported having taken medications and were not affected by MIH, 43 did not take any medications and were affected with MIH and 81 did not take medications and were not affected by MIH. In both groups it was found statistical evidence for an interaction of IRF6 and TGFA genotypes and medication intake at 3 years of age (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of gene-environment interaction results considering medications (taken after three years of age) and its association with MIH phenotype in the cohort from Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) and Rio de Janeiro.

Sample from Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná, Brazil)
Gene SNP Allele Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval) p-value with the genetic influence p-value of medications and MIH only
IRF6 rs17015215 T 2.49 (1.31–4.69) 0.028 0.22
rs2013162 A 2.33 (1.29–4.38) 0.04
rs861019 G 2.5 (1.29–4.72) 0.026
rs2073487 C 2.34 (1.29–4.39) 0.04
rs642961 A 2.36 (1.28–4.44) 0.037
TGFA rs2166975 A 2.43 (1.3–4.57) 0.032
rs1523305 C 2.3 (1.3–4.32) 0.044
rs2902345 T 2.4 (1.33–4.47) 0.038
Sample from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gene SNP A1 Odds Ratio (95% confidence interval) p-value with the genetic influence p-value of medications and MIH only
IRF6 rs17015215 T 4.11 (1.81–7.42) 0.0009 0.0002
rs2013162 A 5.16 (2.43–8.87) 0.0002
rs861019 G 6.86 (3.33–10.4) 0.0004
rs2073487 T 5.74 (2.47–10.02) 1.9e-005

Discussion

MIH was originally defined as hypomineralization of systemic origin of one to four permanent first molars frequently associated with affected incisors [38]. This definition influenced the work done for more than a decade that focused on the identification of an environmental etiological factor [27]. Our group brought to light the possibility that MIH, in fact, has a multifactorial mode of inheritance [2, 5], and therefore has a genetic component, which was estimated in a proportion explaining the variation in the population of at least 20% based on data from twins [39]. Further, our group has proposed that MIH is possibly a localized and multifactorial expression of amelogenesis imperfecta [40].

Some argue that the genetic condition affecting enamel is called amelogenesis imperfecta, and that affect all teeth and have a Mendelian mode of inheritance. On the other hand, enamel hypomineralization (enamel hypoplasia or enamel hypocalcification) would be simply caused by impaired ameloblast function and not by altered genes. Therefore, enamel hypomineralization would be a chronological disturbance that would encompass MIH. This line of thought has led to the hypothesis that the cause of the impaired ameloblast function could be identified because that would be the result of systemic or local causes and this hypothesis has hindered progress of the field for the last 20 years. MIH, like dental caries or periodontitis, fits well in the complex or multifactorial inheritance framework, and similar to cardiovascular diseases as an example, is determined by more than one gene and can be influenced by the environment.

The evidence that MIH frequency varies across the world [622] is supported by the results found in the present study. The association found in the Turkish population was different from the results obtained in the cohorts from Brazil, which indeed indicates that genetic factors contributing to the MIH phenotype may vary depending on geographic origin. Both MIH and clefts apparently have higher frequencies in the north of Europe and this frequency declines as one travels toward the Mediterranean [36, 41]. Interestingly enough, these differences are not clearly seen for the figures from the Americas, with Brazil and the United States with reported frequencies of 10% to 13% [16, 1921]. Additional evidence that interferon regulatory factor 6 (IRF6) and transforming growth factor alpha (TGFA) may interact, as previously suggested in the formation of cleft lip and palate [33], is also supported here as for the formation of MIH in the Turkish population. It was not possible to determine the exact mechanism underlying this population-specific association. The interpretation of these results should be analyzed cautiously. When one looks at the frequency of the less common allele of rs17015215 in the Turkish sample, there are two thirds of the individuals affected by MIH in comparison to 1/7 of the individuals that served as comparison. The frequency of the less common allele of rs930655 is also low: 9/39 in the affected individuals and 9/54 in the unaffected. When using these small numbers, one obtains very high odds ratios between 25 and 40. The issue of overestimation of odds ratios is well documented in the literature [4252]. To avoid the overestimation of the strength of the association, when one wishes odds ratios to be approximations of relative risk, prevalence ratios were calculated, which are the ones presented in Table 3.

Our group has previously reported an interaction of TGFBR1 and childhood pneumonia as a possible gene-environment mechanism that increases the chance of MIH occurrence. Additionally, it was reported statistical evidence of potential interaction between genes related to tooth development and immune response [29]. This present work reports evidence for both gene-gene (IRF6-TGFA) and gene-environment (IRF6-medications taken and TGFA-medications taken) interactions, which support the hypothesis that MIH is a complex genetic condition [5]. In the gene expression analysis, it was observed expression of Irf6 in ameloblasts, but expression of Tgfa was not observed. These results can possibly be explained by the timing of the analysis or simply meant that TGFA and IRF6 do not colocalize, and hence, have no direct joint effect of enamel disturbances. The variable medication intake at 3 years of age was created to capture children with history of medication intake from birth and past 3 years and to serve as a surrogate for children more prone to infections and/or illnesses. The 52 children that were included in these analyses had a perfect correlation of medication used before 1 year of age and medication used at 3 years of age. Three years of age was the cutoff chosen with the assumption that mothers would more likely remember that phase since their toddler was able to speak approximately 200 words and being mostly understood. Knowing that enamel development of first permanent molars is completed around 4 years of age [23], a possible mechanism underlying MIH is an interference in enamel formation due to an organic stress in response to illness or infection. This organic stress could happen at any time between birth and past 4 years of age in children with a particular genetic background that includes hypomorphic alleles of IRF6, TGFA, and other genes such as TGFBR1 [29], and AQP5 [28]. It is likely that disturbances of first permanent molar development may happen after the first year of life, since mineralization of these teeth is not complete until later.

Previous work suggested that MIH is associated with medication intake although this finding was not confirmed by others [26]. The use of medications, which is a surrogate for illness, apparently can lead to MIH depending on genetic variation in IRF6 and TGFA. To properly confirm this hypothesis, the establishment of a cohort of pregnant women that can be prospectively followed from birth to the timing when the permanent dentition is developing is suggested. This approach would allow to minimize issues of recall bias and to provide more definitive answers that the currently published literature could not.

The IRF6-TGFA-medication association with MIH also supports the idea that MIH and cleft lip and palate could possibly be linked. A pleiotropic gene effect could explain this link. Our group has proposed that isolated cleft lip and palate actually is a syndrome that involves disturbances of the dentition [34] and one line of investigation would be to test if genetic variants associated with oral clefts also associate with MIH. We have proposed this approach for isolated tooth agenesis as well [53], and it provided a tool for gene discovery [54, 55]. Tgfa and Irf6 did not show the same pattern of expression in mouse teeth and the mechanism of how they may interact to lead to MIH is yet to be determined.

Among the limitations that can be listed for this present study are the small sample sizes of each independent cohort that may not have allowed the detection of small effect sizes. Depending on the study, clinical information was obtained from reviewing medical records or by the use of questionnaires, and these differences can be source of variation. The fact that detailed information about the type of medication the patients were taking was not available due to self-reporting of this information forced the inclusion of any type of medication intake in the analysis. However, these were not vitamins or other supplements. This kind of observational study that aims to recover information from many years prior suffers from potential issues related to recall bias. For these reasons, the results presented here should be taken cautiously. Another limitation that can be pointed out is that the question on medications taken was asked years after the fact at the moment of participation in the study. Depending on the cohort studied, assessments were done at different age groups (6 to 12, 6 to 10, or at 8 years of age) and one can think this may introduce some variation. In contrast, the strengths of this study include the well characterized phenotype studied here, determined by experienced dentists from different centers, and the diverse geographic populations studied. The combination of these factors increases the confidence in the results obtained.

In summary, the present study provided evidence that IRF6 and TGFA might interact and be involved with MIH in certain populations, although none of these genes appear to have by themselves a major role in MIH. This effect may become more likely apparent when children have to make use of medications around the age of three years. Additional studies to test potential gene-gene interactions in diverse populations are warranted in order to confirm results reported by previous studies [29] and the results found here. Study designs aiming to obtain a more detailed information about what specific medications are involved in the development of MIH are also suggested. These studies should try minimize recall bias by having precisely defined research questions, appropriate data collection methods, well-trained interviewers, being prospective in nature, blinding for researchers and patients, and including nested case-control designs. Despite the limitations described for the present study, the results both reinforce the detrimental effects that medication intake can cause to oral health, and the link between genes associated with orofacial clefts and the MIH phenotype.

Methods

Subjects

The total study population consisted of 1,065 individuals from four populations including three Brazilian cohorts and a Turkish cohort. Salivary sample collection and DNA extraction procedures were described previously [56]. Two groups were from Curitiba, Brazil; the first group consisted of 356 subjects (169 females and 187 males) and the study protocol was approved by the Municipal Department of Education and the Committee for Ethics in Research in Human Health Sciences of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR; approval no. 1.613.829/2016). The second group from Curitiba consisted of 200 individuals (108 females and 92 males) and the project was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, under the protocol number 1.971.986. The third cohort was from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, consisted of 174 individuals (73 females and 101 males), and the study protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee for Research (Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho–HUCFF/UFRJ–approval protocol number 4598514.7.00005257). Finally, the Turkish population consisted of 335 subjects (164 females and 171 males) and the study was approved by the Istanbul University (approval protocol number 2006/2508) Institutional Review Board. Further oversight was obtained at the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (IRB approval protocol numbers PRO0710045 and PRO12080056). MIH was evaluated using the European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (EAPD) criteria [57], and all subjects/guardians read and signed a written informed consent before their participation in the study.

Cohort from Curitiba, Brazil (Federal University of Paraná): Eligibility criteria, calibration of the examiners and data collection

The sample consisted of 356 school children, which were randomly selected from a representative population [58] from the city of Curitiba public schools. To ensure accurate population representation, two-stage cluster sampling was performed. First, two schools from each administrative district were randomly selected. Next, two to three classrooms from each selected school were randomly chosen using the website www.randomizer.org. The children included were all eight years old and presenting four erupted first molars in the oral cavity. Subjects who had orthodontic braces, syndromes, or amelogenesis imperfecta were excluded from the study. The affected group consisted of children with at least one tooth affected by MIH and the comparison group consisted of children who had no teeth presenting hypomineralization.

A structured socioeconomic data questionnaire was completed by the children’s caregivers. Four examiners, previously trained and calibrated to diagnose Molar-incisor hypomineralization, selected thirty intraoral photographs of MIH affected teeth in order to define the diagnosis. Sixty photographs of different clinical scenarios that involved manifestations of MIH were then analyzed by the examiners. After one week, the examiners independently analyzed the same photographs in a different order (duplicate examination, kappa > 0.75). The clinical examination was performed in a school environment using artificial light, a dental mirror, a dental probe with a blunt tip, and sterile gauze. Data collection was performed from November 2016 to September 2017.

Cohort from Curitiba, Brazil (Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná): Eligibility criteria, calibration of the examiners and data collection

This sample consisted of a total of 200 individuals, enrolled in Curitiba municipal schools during 2018. Of these, 100 were affected by MIH and 100 non-affected, 108 were females and 92 were males. This cohort was recruited independently from the cohort recruited by investigators at the Federal University of Paraná, however considering the geographical proximity, there is a possibility that some individuals participated in both studies. Although this was a slight possibility, the data from each group were analyzed separately. The inclusion criteria were children between 6 and 10 years of age, affected by MIH in completely erupted teeth. As for exclusion criteria, individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment or scoring 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ICDAS (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) were excluded from the study population. Two interviewers were calibrated on MIH diagnosis using photographs according to a previously published criterion [59]. The intra-rater reliability was performed one month after to the first assessment for the diagnosis of both case and comparison groups (kappa = 1). The clinical examinations were performed by calibrated dentists in the schools, using natural light, an oral mirror and an exploratory probe when it was necessary.

Cohort from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Eligibility criteria, calibration of the examiners and data collection

This sample consisted of 174 individuals, from 7 to 14 (10.13±1.9) years of age, treated at the Pediatric Dentistry Clinic of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Recruitment took place from July 2015 to April 2017, and divided into children with MIH (n = 78) and without MIH (n = 96). The eligibility criteria for this study included patients having all the first permanent molars erupted. The exclusion criteria consisted of children affected by congenital syndromes, enamel defects (hypoplastic lesions, fluorosis, amelogenesis imperfecta or tetracycline stain) and patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

To assess for inter and intra examiner-reliability, a theoretical exercise was previously applied for two days. Twenty clinical images of dental enamel defects including fluorosis, hypoplasia, amelogenesis imperfecta, dental caries and MIH were shown to the examiners (F.M.F.S., M.C.M). Two weeks after the first assessment, a new assessment was carried out with the examiners and the kappas were 0.88 and 0.89, respectively.

The subjects’ health data were collected through health records, including the demographic data (child´s age, sex, place of birth, residence, parent’s education and income), mother’s health during pregnancy, and children’s medical history (medication intake, systemic diseases, high fever, malnutrition, asthma, bronchitis, epilepsy, and severe infections). The clinical examination was performed by a calibrated dentist (F.M.F.S). Examinations were carried out using a mirror and a probe, at the dental chair and using artificial light.

Cohort from Istanbul, Turkey: Eligibility criteria, calibration of the examiners and data collection

Eligible individuals were enrolled at the Pediatric Clinic of Istanbul University, Turkey (n = 335, ages ranging from 6 to 12 years). Subjects affected by syndromes, fluorosis, or the ones who had fixed appliances were excluded from the study. Cases were defined as subjects affected by MIH, while controls were defined as subjects with no evidence of MIH.

Calibrated examiners carried out the clinical examination, with F.S. having calibrated M.B. and M.K. Exam calibrations were performed according to the following protocol: First, the calibrator presented to the examiner the criteria for MIH detection, showing pictures of several situations to be observed in the exam and discussing each of these situations in a session that lasted one to two hours. Next, the calibrator and examiner analyzed ten to twenty subjects and discussed each case. The intraexaminer agreement was assessed by a second clinical examination in 10% of the sample after two weeks, with a kappa of 1.0. M.K. pre-screened subjects, and M.B. performed the full exam. This cohort and methodology have been reported before [2]. Clinical examinations were performed using a flashlight and intra-oral mirror and gauze was used to dry and clean the teeth prior to examination. Artificial light and dental operatory were used for all evaluations. An explorer was gently used for assessing the smoothness of tooth surfaces.

Single marker analysis

The amount of DNA and the purity of each sample was determined by spectrophotometry (NanoDrop 1000, Thermo Fisher Scientific, US). The DNA concentration was obtained by readings at 260 nm and the purity by 260/ 280 nm proportion. Five single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in IRF6 (rs2073487, rs2013162, rs17015215, rs861019, rs642961) and four in TGFA were genotyped (Table 2). PCR reactions were carried out using Taqman chemistry [60] in 3.0 μl reaction volumes in an ABI PRISM Sequence Detection System 7900 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Genotyping calls were analyzed using SDS software version 1.7 (Applied Biosystems). PCR reactions were repeated twice when necessary and allele frequencies were calculated. Genotypes are available as (S1S4 Files).

Gene-gene interactions

Gene-gene interaction analyses were performed using logistic regression as implemented in PLINK. In order to test the interaction between IRF6 and TGFA, the presence of MIH was considered a dependent variable and the SNPs were considered independent variables. A file containing all IRF6 genotypes was ran against a covariate file containing the TGFA genotypes organized by copies of alleles, and this analysis was repeated with a TGFA genotype file against the IRF6 covariate file.

Immunofluorescence

Expression of Tgfa and Irf6 proteins was performed on paraffin sections from heads of wild type mice at E16.5. Maintenance and handling of mice were approved by the Animal Care Unit at the University of Iowa. Tissues were deparaffinized and rehydrated in a series of ethanol dilutions. Slides were boiled for 20 min in antigen unmasking solution (Vector Laboratories, H-3300). Sections were blocked with 20% donkey serum (sigma, D9663A), then incubated overnight at 4°C with the following primary antibodies: polyclonal goat anti-Tgfa (1:50, R&D, AF-239-SP) and polyclonal rabbit anti-Irf6 (1:50, sigma SAB2102995). After rinsing in PBS, sections were incubated with secondary antibodies conjugated to Alexa Fluorophore 488 or 555 (Molecular Probes, Invitrogen, CA). The nuclei were counterstained with DAPI in PBS (1:10000). The images were taken using a ZEISS 700 confocal microscopy.

Gene-environment interactions

Tests for potential associations between MIH and factors that affected the children of 3 years of age or older in the cohorts from Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná) and Rio de Janeiro were carried out. The variables included the presence of respiratory issues, malnutrition, any type of food intolerance, infection of any sort and any type of medication intake between 3 years of age and the time the sample was collected. This information was part of the questionnaires obtained for both MIH affected and unaffected children. Mothers responded the questions and all participants were asked the same questions, which included medical history of the child (diseases and medications taken) and details of the child’s diet. Vitamins and other supplements were not counted as medications.

The variable “medications taken at 3 years of age” was designed due to the evidence that cuspal enamel formation of first permanent molars is not completed until past 3 years of age [24]. These data suggest that the first molar susceptibility window for MIH goes beyond the first year of age. The suggestion that first permanent molar mineralization is completed by one year of age likely limits the ability of unveiling associations.

We have complied with the STROBE guidelines in this study.

Statistical analysis

All SNPs in all samples were tested for deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium using chi-square. In the single-marker analysis, association tests were performed comparing genotypes to phenotype between affected individuals and their respective comparison groups as implemented in the PLINK software [61]. Both odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. In order to account for multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was performed and p-values of 0.001 (0.05/36) or below were considered significant.

In the gene-gene interaction analysis, p-values below 0.0004 (0.05/108) were considered statistically significant.

In the gene-environment interaction analysis the covariates were dichotomous and analyses were performed using logistic regression as also implemented in PLINK.

The power necessary to detect significant associations between a gene marker and the phenotype in each cohort was calculated using a Genetic Power Calculator tool [62]. The frequency of the high-risk allele in the population was defined as equal to 0.2, the prevalence of MIH as 0.12, D’ as 1.0 (amount of linkage disequilibrium), the respective number of cases of each cohort and the case-comparison group ratio. When imputing the effect size in the heterozygote form as 1.3 and the effect size of homozygous form as 5.0, it was obtained 69%, 57%, 51%, and 79% power in the cohort from Curitiba (Federal University of Paraná), Curitiba (Pontifical Catholic University), Rio de Janeiro and Istanbul, respectively. Power will decrease with lower effect sizes for both forms, and will increase to 82%, 70%, 64%, and 89%, respectively if the effect size for the homozygous form is 6.0.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw genotypes, Curitiba (UFPR).

(XLSX)

S2 File. Raw genotypes, Curitiba (PUCPR).

(XLSX)

S3 File. Raw genotypes, Rio de Janeiro.

(XLSX)

S4 File. Raw genotypes, Istanbul.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This paper is based in part on a thesis submitted to the graduate faculty, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree (for F.M.F.S.) and on a thesis submitted to the graduate faculty, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MS degree (for E.G.C.).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

F.M.F.S. was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro– FAPERJ process E-26/201.745/2019 (https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Amparo+%C3%A0+Pesquisa+do+Estado+do+Rio+de+Janeiro%E2%80%93+FAPERJ+process+E-26/201.745/2019&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyt97Vw_XqAhW-hXIEHbfJCoEQsAR6BAgBEAE&biw=956&bih=665). E.G.C. was supported by CAPES. A.R. was supported by the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine Dean’s Summer Research program. The work was supported in part by a grant from Araucária Foundation awarded to R.I.W (www.fappr.pr.gov.br). This paper is based in part on a thesis submitted to the graduate faculty, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree (for F.M.F.S.) and on a thesis submitted to the graduate faculty, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MS degree (for E.G.C.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cuy JL, Mann AB, Livi KJ, Teaford MF, Weihs TP. Nanoindentation mapping of the mechanical properties of human molar tooth enamel. Arch Oral Biol. 2002;47(4):281–91. Epub 2002/04/02. 10.1016/s0003-9969(02)00006-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jeremias F, Koruyucu M, Kuchler EC, Bayram M, Tuna EB, Deeley K, et al. Genes expressed in dental enamel development are associated with molar-incisor hypomineralization. Arch Oral Biol. 2013;58(10):1434–42. Epub 2013/06/25. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Garg N, Jain AK, Saha S, Singh J. Essentiality of early diagnosis of molar incisor hypomineralization in children and review of its clinical presentation, etiology and management. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012;5(3):190–6. Epub 2012/09/01. 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Raposo F, de Carvalho Rodrigues AC, Lia EN, Leal SC. Prevalence of Hypersensitivity in Teeth Affected by Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH). Caries Res. 2019:1–7. Epub 2019/01/25. 10.1159/000495848 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vieira AR, Kup E. On the Etiology of Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization. Caries Res. 2016;50(2):166–9. Epub 2016/04/26. 10.1159/000445128 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhao D, Dong B, Yu D, Ren Q, Sun Y. The prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization: evidence from 70 studies. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(2):170–9. Epub 2017/07/22. 10.1111/ipd.12323 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Koruyucu M, Ozel S, Tuna EB. Prevalence and etiology of molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH) in the city of Istanbul. J Dent Sci. 2018;13(4):318–28. Epub 2019/03/22. 10.1016/j.jds.2018.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hussain G, Al-Halabi M, Kowash M, Hassan A. The Prevalence and Severity of Molar Incisor Hypomineralization and Molar Hypomineralization in Dubai, UAE. J Dent Child (Chic). 2018;85(3):102–7. Epub 2019/03/15. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Saitoh M, Nakamura Y, Hanasaki M, Saitoh I, Murai Y, Kurashige Y, et al. Prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization and regional differences throughout Japan. Environ Health Prev Med. 2018;23(1):55 Epub 2018/11/02. 10.1186/s12199-018-0748-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Glodkowska N, Emerich K. Molar Incisor Hypomineralization: prevalence and severity among children from Nothern Poland. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2019;20(1):59–66. Epub 2019/03/29. 10.23804/ejpd.2019.20.01.12 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mejia JD, Restrepo M, Gonzalez S, Alvarez LG, Santos-Pinto L, Escobar A. Molar Incisor Hypomineralization in Colombia: Prevalence, Severity and Associated Risk Factors. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;43(3):185–9. Epub 2019/04/10. 10.17796/1053-4625-43.3.7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rai PM, Jain J, Raju AS, Nair RA, Shashidhar K, Dsouza S. Prevalence of Molar Incisor Hypomineralization among School Children Aged 9 to 12 Years in Virajpet, Karnataka, India. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(6):1042–6. Epub 2019/04/13. 10.3889/oamjms.2019.224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gorbatova MA, Utkina EI, Zinchenko GA, Grjibovski AM, Popova DA, Popov VA, et al. [Molar-incisor hypomineralization among 12-years old children in Arkhangelsk region]. Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2019;98(2):64–6. Epub 2019/05/16. 10.17116/stomat20199802164 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kilinc G, Cetin M, Kose B, Ellidokuz H. Prevalence, aetiology, and treatment of molar incisor hypomineralization in children living in Izmir City (Turkey). Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29(6):775–82. Epub 2019/05/18. 10.1111/ipd.12508 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ahmad SH, Petrou MA, Alhumrani A, Hashim R, Splieth C. Prevalence of Molar-Incisor Hypomineralisation in an Emerging Community, and a Possible Correlation with Caries, Fluorosis and Socioeconomic Status. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2019;17(4):323–7. Epub 2019/06/22. 10.3290/j.ohpd.a42725 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Davenport M, Welles AD, Angelopoulou MV, Gonzalez C, Okunseri C, Barbeau L, et al. Prevalence of molar-incisor hypomineralization in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA: a pilot study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2019;11:109–17. Epub 2019/06/27. 10.2147/CCIDE.S172736 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Villanueva-Gutierrez T, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Castano-Seiquier A, Zepeda-Zepeda MA, Sanchez-Perez L, Frechero NM. Prevalence and Severity of Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization, Maternal Education, and Dental Caries: A Cross-Sectional Study of Mexican Schoolchildren with Low Socioeconomic Status. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019;9(5):513–21. Epub 2019/10/18. 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_130_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goswami M, Bhushan U, Pandiyan R, Sharma S. Molar Incisor Hypomineralization-An Emerging Burden: A Short Study on Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics in Central Delhi, India. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(3):211–4. Epub 2019/11/12. 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hartsock LA, Burnheimer J, Modesto A, Vieira AR. A Snapshot of the prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization and fluorosis in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Pediatr Dent 2020;42(1):36–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Silva FMF, Zhou Y, Vieira FGF, Carvalho FM, Costa MC, Vieira AR. Defining the prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralization in Brazil. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr 2020;20:e5146 10.1590/pcobi.2020.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ahmed AT, Soto-Rojas AE, Dean JA, Eckert GJ, Martinez-Mier EA. Prevalence of molar-incisor hypomineralization and other enamel defects and associated sociodemographic determinants in Indiana. J Am Dent Assoc 2020;151(7):491–501. 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.02.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Amend S, Nossol C, Bausback-Schomakers S, Wleklinski C, Scheibelhut C, Pons-Kühnemann J, et al. Prevalence of molar-incsor-hypomineralisation (MIH) among 6-12-year-old children in Central Hesse (Germany). Clin Oral Investig. 2020; 10.1007/s00784-020-03519-7 Online ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gleiser I, Hunt EE Jr., The permanent mandibular first molar: its calcification, eruption and decay. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1955;13(2):253–83. Epub 1955/06/01. 10.1002/ajpa.1330130206 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Reid DJ, Dean MC. Variation in modern human enamel formation times. J Hum Evol. 2006;50(3):329–46. Epub 2005/11/23. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.09.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Robinson C. Enamel maturation: a brief background with implications for some enamel dysplasias. Front Physiol. 2014;5:388 Epub 2014/10/24. 10.3389/fphys.2014.00388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Silva MJ, Scurrah KJ, Craig JM, Manton DJ, Kilpatrick N. Etiology of molar incisor hypomineralization—A systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44(4):342–53. Epub 2016/04/29. 10.1111/cdoe.12229 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fatturi AL, Wambier LM, Chibinski AC, Assuncao L, Brancher JA, Reis A, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of systemic exposure associated with molar incisor hypomineralization. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2019;47(5):407–15. Epub 2019/05/22. 10.1111/cdoe.12467 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pang L, Li X, Wang K, Tao Y, Cui T, Xu Q, et al. Interactions with the aquaporin 5 gene increase the susceptibility to molar-incisor hypomineralization. Arch Oral Biol. 2020;111:104637 Epub 2019/12/31. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.104637 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bussaneli DG, Restrepo M, Fragelli CMB, Santos-Pinto L, Jeremias F, Cordeiro RCL, et al. Genes Regulating Immune Response and Amelogenesis Interact in Increasing the Susceptibility to Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization. Caries Res. 2019;53(2):217–27. Epub 2018/08/22. 10.1159/000491644 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bezamat M, Deeley K, Khaliq S, Letra A, Scariot R, Silva RM, et al. Are mTOR and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress Pathway Genes Associated with Oral and Bone Diseases? Caries Res. 2019;53(3):235–41. Epub 2018/09/12. 10.1159/000492675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Walker SC, Mattick CR, Hobson RS, Steen IN. Abnormal tooth size and morphology in subjects with cleft lip and/or palate in the north of England. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(1):68–75. Epub 2008/12/17. 10.1093/ejo/cjn073 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Letra A, Menezes R, Granjeiro JM, Vieira AR. Defining subphenotypes for oral clefts based on dental development. J Dent Res. 2007;86(10):986–91. Epub 2007/09/25. 10.1177/154405910708601013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Letra A, Fakhouri W, Fonseca RF, Menezes R, Kempa I, Prasad JL, et al. Interaction between IRF6 and TGFA genes contribute to the risk of nonsyndromic cleft lip/palate. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45441 Epub 2012/10/03. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Koruyucu M, Kasimoglu Y, Seymen F, Bayram M, Patir A, Ergoz N, et al. Rethinking isolated cleft lip and palate as a syndrome. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;125(4):307–12. Epub 2018/03/04. 10.1016/j.oooo.2018.01.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chu EY, Tamasas B, Fong H, Foster BL, LaCourse MR, Tran AB, et al. Full Spectrum of Postnatal Tooth Phenotypes in a Novel Irf6 Cleft Lip Model. J Dent Res. 2016;95(11):1265–73. Epub 2016/07/03. 10.1177/0022034516656787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vieira AR. Association between the transforming growth factor alpha gene and nonsyndromic oral clefts: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(9):790–810. Epub 2006/02/24. 10.1093/aje/kwj103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sull JW, Liang KY, Hetmanski JB, Wu T, Fallin MD, Ingersoll RG, et al. Evidence that TGFA influences risk to cleft lip with/without cleft palate through unconventional genetic mechanisms. Hum Genet. 2009;126(3):385–94. Epub 2009/05/16. 10.1007/s00439-009-0680-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Weerheijm KL. Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH). Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(3):114–20. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vieira AR. On the genetics contribution to molar-incisor hypomineralization. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29(1):2–3. 10.1111/ipd.12439 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vieira AR. Genetic basis of enamel and dentin defects In: Vieira AR. Genetic basis of oral health conditions. Springer: Cham, 2020: 9–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vieira AR. Prevalence of molar incisor hypomineralisation has a North-South gradient between Europe and North Africa. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019;20(5):501–2. Epub 2019/02/07. 10.1007/s40368-019-00417-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;125(5):761–8. Epub 1987/05/01. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lee J. Odds ratio or relative risk for cross-sectional data? Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23(1):201–3. Epub 1994/02/01. 10.1093/ije/23.1.201 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lee J, Chia KS. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data: an example in occupational epidemiology. Br J Ind Med. 1993;50(9):861–2. Epub 1993/09/01. 10.1136/oem.50.9.861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lee J, Chia KS. Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio—a response. Occup Environ Med. 1995;52(11):781–2. Epub 1995/11/01. 10.1136/oem.52.11.781-a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nurminen M. To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses? Eur J Epidemiol. 1995;11(4):365–71. Epub 1995/08/01. 10.1007/BF01721219 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Stromberg U. Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio—some further comments. Occup Environ Med. 1995;52(2):143 Epub 1995/02/01. 10.1136/oem.52.2.143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):931–9. Epub 2000/09/27. 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00210-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes. The odds ratio. BMJ. 2000;320(7247):1468 Epub 2000/05/29. 10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology beyond the basics. 2 USA: Jones and Bartlett; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gordis L. Epidemiology. 4 USA: Saunders Elsevier; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tamhane AR, Westfall AO, Burkholder GA, Cutter GR. Prevalence odds ratio versus prevalence ratio: choice comes with consequences. Stat Med. 2016;35(30):5730–5. Epub 2016/07/28. 10.1002/sim.7059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Vieira AR. Oral clefts and syndromic forms of tooth agenesis as models for genetics of isolated tooth agenesis. J Dent Res. 2003;82(3):162–5. Epub 2003/02/25. 10.1177/154405910308200303 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vieira AR, McHenry TG, Daack-Hirsch S, Murray JC, Marazita ML. A genome wide linkage scan for cleft lip and palate and dental anomalies. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A(11):1406–13. Epub 2008/04/30. 10.1002/ajmg.a.32295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vieira AR, McHenry TG, Daack-Hirsch S, Murray JC, Marazita ML. Candidate gene/loci studies in cleft lip/palate and dental anomalies finds novel susceptibility genes for clefts. Genet Med. 2008;10(9):668–74. Epub 2008/11/04. 10.1097/gim.0b013e3181833793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Trevilatto PC, Line SR. Use of buccal epithelial cells for PCR amplification of large DNA fragments. J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2000;18(1):6–9. Epub 2001/04/28. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Weerheijm KL, Duggal M, Mejare I, Papagiannoulis L, Koch G, Martens LC, et al. Judgement criteria for molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) in epidemiologic studies: a summary of the European meeting on MIH held in Athens, 2003. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(3):110–3. Epub 2003/10/08. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Portella PD, Menoncin BLV, Souza JF, Menezes JVNB, Fraiz FC, Assunção LRS. Impact of molar incisor hypomineralization on quality of life in children with early mixed dentition: A hieranchical approach. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019;29(4):496–506. 10.1111/ipd.12482 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ghanim A, Silva MJ, Elfrink MEC, Lygidakis NA, Mariño RJ, Weerheijm KL, et al. Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) training manual for clinical field surveys and practice. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(4):225–42. 10.1007/s40368-017-0293-9 Epub 2017 Jul 18. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ranade K, Chang MS, Ting CT, Pei D, Hsiao CF, Olivier M, et al. High-throughput genotyping with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genome Res. 2001;11(7):1262–8. Epub 2001/07/04. 10.1101/gr.157801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(3):559–75. Epub 2007/08/19. 10.1086/519795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Purcell S, Cherny SS, Sham PC. Genetic Power Calculator: design of linkage and association genetic mapping studies of complex traits. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(1):149–50. Epub 2002/12/25. 10.1093/bioinformatics/19.1.149 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

JJ Cray Jr

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

9 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24540

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The expert reviewers have identified several major issues. Of specific concern is the description of variables, potential missing data, inclusion criteria, approach to analysis and data interpretation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors analyzed causes of Molar Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH). The term “MIH” came into use 20 years ago, and causes of MIH are unknown. This reviewer thinks that the topic is very important for dentists. However, the following points should be clarified prior to further consideration of publication of the manuscript.

MIH is defined as a hypomineralization of systemic origin of one to four permanent first molars frequently associated with affected incisors by Weerheijm (2001).

Ref: Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(3):114-20.

The authors described that these enamel defects usually occur when there are disturbances during the mineralization or maturation stage of amelogenesis. The first molar is finished mineralization of crown by 3 years old. However, the authors concluded that environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older were also hypothesized to play a role in the disease etiology.

The authors also described that genes interacted and contributed to predisposition of MIH. If genetic factors cause hypomineralization, the disease is not MIH but amelogenesis imperfecta. Genetic abnormalities cause hypoplasia in all teeth rather than locally.

Reviewer #2: The English language needs to be professionally revised. There are straightforward grammar issues. For example paragraph 4 in introduction “Risk factors for MIH did not fully explained” … and paragraph 5 in introduction “has been documented as responsible for not only affect amelogenesis…”. “The chance of the less common allele of TGFA rs930655 in addition to the IRF6 marker allele to increase the chance …”

Reviewer #3: This manuscript deals with an interesting topic and currently one of the forefront problems in the field of paediatric dentistry, i.e. MIH, focusing on its aetiology. However, there are some issues with this manuscript. In comments, only methodology and results of the study are addressed.

There is no information on how children were selected. Data on children’s age is missing.

Who performed dental examinations? Were the dentists who performed dental examination calibrated?

Regarding MIH diagnostic criteria; description of the dental examination results related to MIH affected teeth is essential (e.g. which teeth are MIH-affected, what was MIH severity).

Text describing environmental factors is very vague. How was the data on environmental factors obtained (e.g. medical history, a questioner)? Who answered the questions about environmental factors (e.g., children, parents, teachers,..)? Were all participants asked the same questions? On which environmental factors that could be associated with MIH were participants asked?

Why do the authors proceed from a hypothesis that environmental factors affecting 3 year-old children or older play a role in the aetiology of MIH? In MIH, the insult to the ameloblasts is likely to occur either prenatally or in the first year of life (Mangum and Farah).

Since the aim of the study was to clarify the aetiology of MIH, it is not clear why various potentially harmful aetiological factors would be considered as a single potential cause of MIH.

The results of the study did not show significant association between the selected SNPs and MIH. The study also does not provide solid evidence for the IRF6 and TGFA interaction, nor that the development of MIH is associated with any of these genes. Moreover, as the authors have already stated themselves, the size of each cohort is small for such research.

Figure 1: A description of each of the six images is missing.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, ‘Gene-environment interaction in Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation’. I congratulate the authors for undertaking very broad and comprehensive approach to investigating genetic interactions in MIH. However, due to two major concerns with this paper, I cannot support publication of this manuscript. My main concerns are:

(1) The choice of genetic variants – these appear to have been measured due to their relevance in a different condition (cleft lip and palate) which the authors suggest may be linked. However, adopting this candidate-based approach and then, by stratifying the data when significant results were not obtained so that a ‘statistically significant’ could be reported, seems to misrepresent the real outcome of the study. I suggest there are potentially more biological plausible interactions that could have been investigated that could be supported by existing evidence relating potential genetic and environmental risk factors. I note the authors do acknowledge some of the limitations however these major limitations do not seem to be considered when reporting the study conclusions.

(2) The observational component is particularly weak – participant recall of ‘medication use’ is prone to many biases and does not contribute to the existing evidence base regarding MIH. In order to investigate a complex causal relationship such as this, the authors needed to develop a detailed analysis plan with consideration of potential confounders etc.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Azza Tagelsir Ahmed

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviewer comments.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0241898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241898.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Sep 2020

September 9, 2020

To: The Editor, PLoS One

Dear Dr. Cray Jr.:

after carefully reading yours and the reviewers’ comments, we decided to substantially revise and resubmit our work entitled “Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization .” We believe we have addressed all the concerns and are hoping it is suitable for publication in your journal.

This work explores genomic variants associated with cleft lip and palate as potentially associated with MIH.

We are looking forward to seeing our revised work being well received. Below are point-by-point answers for the critiques and all changes are marked in yellow.

Sincerely,

Alexandre R. Vieira, D.D.S., M.S., PhD

Professor of Oral Biology, Pediatric Dentistry and Human Genetics Director of Clinical Research and Director of Student Research Department of Oral Biology

University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine

412 Salk Pavilion

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Office: 412-383-8972

FAX: 412-624-3080

E-mail: arv11@pitt.edu

Point-by-point response to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors analyzed causes of Molar Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH). The term “MIH” came into use 20 years ago, and causes of MIH are unknown. This reviewer thinks that the topic is very important for dentists. However, the following points should be clarified prior to further consideration of publication of the manuscript.

MIH is defined as a hypomineralization of systemic origin of one to four permanent first molars frequently associated with affected incisors by Weerheijm (2001).

Ref: Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4(3):114-20.

The authors described that these enamel defects usually occur when there are disturbances during the mineralization or maturation stage of amelogenesis. The first molar is finished mineralization of crown by 3 years old. However, the authors concluded that environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older were also hypothesized to play a role in the disease etiology.

The authors also described that genes interacted and contributed to predisposition of MIH. If genetic factors cause hypomineralization, the disease is not MIH but amelogenesis imperfecta. Genetic abnormalities cause hypoplasia in all teeth rather than locally.

RESPONSE: The definition cited above from Karin Weerheijm (2001) that the condition is o systemic origin does not exclude the possibility that it has a genetic component. We have suggested this for 8 years now and more and more scientists have surrendered to the idea at this point. We indeed believe MIH is possibly an extension of amelogenesis imperfecta, a localized one, at least in some instances. We added the opening paragraph of the Discussion section to address this reviewer’s concern. Further, we had originally included discussion in the paper regarding the time of mineralization of molars crowns and the variable “infection at 3 years of age.” It was on the original third paragraph of the Discussion section.

Reviewer #2: The English language needs to be professionally revised. There are straightforward grammar issues. For example paragraph 4 in introduction “Risk factors for MIH did not fully explained” … and paragraph 5 in introduction “has been documented as responsible for not only affect amelogenesis…”. “The chance of the less common allele of TGFA rs930655 in addition to the IRF6 marker allele to increase the chance …”

RESPONSE: We carefully revised the text for grammar and style and made the above pointed out corrections.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript deals with an interesting topic and currently one of the forefront problems in the field of paediatric dentistry, i.e. MIH, focusing on its aetiology. However, there are some issues with this manuscript. In comments, only methodology and results of the study are addressed.

There is no information on how children were selected. Data on children’s age is missing.

RESPONSE: This information was in the supplemental file. We moved if to the text.

Who performed dental examinations? Were the dentists who performed dental examination calibrated?

RESPONSE: This information was in the supplemental file. We moved if to the text.

Regarding MIH diagnostic criteria; description of the dental examination results related to MIH affected teeth is essential (e.g. which teeth are MIH-affected, what was MIH severity).

RESPONSE: This information was in the supplemental file. We moved if to the text. The original cohorts had originally assigned subjects are affected or not affected.

Text describing environmental factors is very vague. How was the data on environmental factors obtained (e.g. medical history, a questioner)? Who answered the questions about environmental factors (e.g., children, parents, teachers,..)? Were all participants asked the same questions? On which environmental factors that could be associated with MIH were participants asked?

RESPONSE: We added the information as requested. How the data was originally obtained (questionnaire) was original described in the methods.

Why do the authors proceed from a hypothesis that environmental factors affecting 3 year-old children or older play a role in the aetiology of MIH? In MIH, the insult to the ameloblasts is likely to occur either prenatally or in the first year of life (Mangum and Farah).

RESPONSE: We had originally added some Discussion regarding the variable of infection at 3 years of age. It is quite possible the disruption of amelogenesis happens later as well, not necessarily during the secretion phase only, but during the mineralization phase as well.

Since the aim of the study was to clarify the aetiology of MIH, it is not clear why various potentially harmful aetiological factors would be considered as a single potential cause of MIH.

RESPONSE: It is not the case we considered the various risk factors as a single potential cause. It is just that our analysis suggest one particular one associated.

The results of the study did not show significant association between the selected SNPs and MIH. The study also does not provide solid evidence for the IRF6 and TGFA interaction, nor that the development of MIH is associated with any of these genes. Moreover, as the authors have already stated themselves, the size of each cohort is small for such research.

RESPONSE: This is correct and it is clearly stated in the Results and Discussion sections. Suggestive results only come from the combined analyses of different factors.

Figure 1: A description of each of the six images is missing.

RESPONSE We added the description as requested.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, ‘Gene-environment interaction in Molar Incisor Hypomineralisation’. I congratulate the authors for undertaking very broad and comprehensive approach to investigating genetic interactions in MIH. However, due to two major concerns with this paper, I cannot support publication of this manuscript. My main concerns are:

(1) The choice of genetic variants – these appear to have been measured due to their relevance in a different condition (cleft lip and palate) which the authors suggest may be linked. However, adopting this candidate-based approach and then, by stratifying the data when significant results were not obtained so that a ‘statistically significant’ could be reported, seems to misrepresent the real outcome of the study. I suggest there are potentially more biological plausible interactions that could have been investigated that could be supported by existing evidence relating potential genetic and environmental risk factors. I note the authors do acknowledge some of the limitations however these major limitations do not seem to be considered when reporting the study conclusions.

RESPONSE: We revised the conclusions to address this concern.

(2) The observational component is particularly weak – participant recall of ‘medication use’ is prone to many biases and does not contribute to the existing evidence base regarding MIH. In order to investigate a complex causal relationship such as this, the authors needed to develop a detailed analysis plan with consideration of potential confounders etc.

RESPONSE: This is an issue inherent to any observational study that includes recalling events many years prior. We added text in the last paragraph of the discussion to acknowledge this.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal letter_PLoS One MIH.docx

Decision Letter 1

JJ Cray Jr

22 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24540R1

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Although the manuscript was given an overhaul, the same themes concerning major issues were again expressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This author commented two problems of this manuscript. I couldn't get satisfying answers from authors.

The causes of disorders in amelogenesis can be divided into those caused by genes (genetic factors) and those not caused by genes (systemic causes, local causes). The former is hereditary disorder (amelogenesis imperfecta), which affects all teeth. The latter is enamel hypomineralization (enamel hypoplasia or enamel hypocalcification) caused by impaired ameloblast function. Enamel hypomineralization is chronological disturbance. MIH is included in enamel hypomineralization. MIH is a local enamel hypomineralization not amelogenesis imperfecta. Authors responded to my comments as that “MIH is possibility an extension of amelogenesis imperfecta”. The authors also have suggested that genetic abnormality is a one of the factors of MIH. I cannot believe this hypothesis. The disorder is not hypomineralization of enamel but amelogenesis imperfecta. “amelogenesis imperfecta” and “enamel hypomineralization” are often misunderstood as a single disorder and expressed in a term. However, they are actually different disorders. The former means hereditary disorders while the latter means nonhereditary congenital disorders considered as chronological disturbances. If enamel hypomineralization is caused by genetic abnormalities, enamel hypomineralization (MIH) is recognized in all teeth.

This reviewer also commented on the timing of enamel mineralization. MIH is defined hypomineralization of enamel affecting affects one or more permanent first molars with or without permanent incisor involvement. Calcification of the first molar begins at birth, and crown formation (mineralization of enamel) completed at 30-36 months. The same opinion was found in reviewer #3.

Reviewer #3 Why do the authors proceed from a hypothesis that environmental factors affecting 3 year-old children or older play a role in the aetiology of MIH? In MIH, the insult to the ameloblasts is likely to occur either prenatally or in the first year of life.

The authors responded that “It is quite possible the disruption of amelogenesis happens later as well, not necessarily during the secretion phase only, but during the mineralization phase as well.”

This reviewer thinks that the authors don’t consider mineralization phase of the first molar. Environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older never concern to MIH. This factor affects permanent teeth except for the first molars.

Reviewer #2: After reviewing the revised submission and the response to the reviewer comments, I would like to inform the authors that NOT all my concerns were addressed. only the English language point was addressed!!

Please refer to the attached point by point review document (8 points in total) and provide point by point explanations and amendments within the body of the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Azza Tagelsir Ahmed

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviewer comments.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0241898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241898.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Sep 2020

September 22, 2020

To: The Editor, PLoS One

Dear Dr. Cray Jr.:

after carefully reading yours and the reviewers’ comments, we decided to revise again and resubmit our work entitled “Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization .” We believe we have addressed all the concerns and are hoping it is suitable for publication in your journal. The two most salient comments from one of the reviewers, the idea that MIH does not have a genetic component and the timing of mineralization of the first permanent first molar being at 1 year of age appeared to us not supported by the current knowledge. We addressed these concerns and added more discussion and believe those are a matter of opinion and we urge that PLoS let the readers react and decide how to interpret our work. Hopefully our work will motivate a change in direction for the field with less of an emphasis on association studies of elusive environmental factors and better designed gene-environmental model studies.

This work explores genomic variants associated with cleft lip and palate as potentially associated with MIH.

We are looking forward to seeing our revised work being well received. Below are point-by-point answers for the critiques and all changes are marked in yellow.

Sincerely,

Alexandre R. Vieira, D.D.S., M.S., PhD

Professor of Oral Biology, Pediatric Dentistry and Human Genetics Director of Clinical Research and Director of Student Research Department of Oral Biology

University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine

412 Salk Pavilion

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Office: 412-383-8972

FAX: 412-624-3080

E-mail: arv11@pitt.edu

Point-by-point response to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: This author commented two problems of this manuscript. I couldn't get satisfying answers from authors.

The causes of disorders in amelogenesis can be divided into those caused by genes (genetic factors) and those not caused by genes (systemic causes, local causes). The former is hereditary disorder (amelogenesis imperfecta), which affects all teeth. The latter is enamel hypomineralization (enamel hypoplasia or enamel hypocalcification) caused by impaired ameloblast function. Enamel hypomineralization is chronological disturbance. MIH is included in enamel hypomineralization. MIH is a local enamel hypomineralization not amelogenesis imperfecta. Authors responded to my comments as that “MIH is possibility an extension of amelogenesis imperfecta”. The authors also have suggested that genetic abnormality is a one of the factors of MIH. I cannot believe this hypothesis. The disorder is not hypomineralization of enamel but amelogenesis imperfecta. “amelogenesis imperfecta” and “enamel hypomineralization” are often misunderstood as a single disorder and expressed in a term. However, they are actually different disorders. The former means hereditary disorders while the latter means nonhereditary congenital disorders considered as chronological disturbances. If enamel hypomineralization is caused by genetic abnormalities, enamel hypomineralization (MIH) is recognized in all teeth.

RESPONSE: The assumption that a genetic condition affecting teeth would have to be present in al teeth is simply incorrect. We understand that is a misconception in the field and we added more discussion to the matter to address this concern. It is not a matter of opinion anymore, MIH fits well a condition with a complex mode of inheritance. Genetic conditions that have mendelian forms of inheritance are actually not the most typical examples of disease in human. Most common diseases in humans, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer (and dental caries, periodontitis, MIH) have complex modes of inheritance.

This reviewer also commented on the timing of enamel mineralization. MIH is defined hypomineralization of enamel affecting affects one or more permanent first molars with or without permanent incisor involvement. Calcification of the first molar begins at birth, and crown formation (mineralization of enamel) completed at 30-36 months. The same opinion was found in reviewer #3.

RESPONSE: As we discussed originally, most of the children included in the analysis had medications since their first year of life. We described evidence (original reference 19) that the mineralization of first permanent molars can be still occurring pass 36 months and up to 48 months. We added more discussion to highlight this concern.

Reviewer #3 Why do the authors proceed from a hypothesis that environmental factors affecting 3 year-old children or older play a role in the aetiology of MIH? In MIH, the insult to the ameloblasts is likely to occur either prenatally or in the first year of life.

The authors responded that “It is quite possible the disruption of amelogenesis happens later as well, not necessarily during the secretion phase only, but during the mineralization phase as well.”

This reviewer thinks that the authors don’t consider mineralization phase of the first molar. Environmental factors affecting children that were 3 years of age or older never concern to MIH. This factor affects permanent teeth except for the first molars.

RESPONSE: As we discussed originally, most of the children included in the analysis had medications since their first year of life. The impression that first molars are somehow immune from mineralization disturbances after the first year of life, knowing that mineralization of these teeth continues into 36 to 48 months is probably not current. We added more discussion to highlight this concern.

Reviewer #2: After reviewing the revised submission and the response to the reviewer comments, I would like to inform the authors that NOT all my concerns were addressed. only the English language point was addressed!!

Please refer to the attached point by point review document (8 points in total) and provide point by point explanations and amendments within the body of the manuscript.

Throughout the manuscript

1. English language needs to be professionally revised. There are straightforward grammar issues. For example, paragraph 4 in introduction “Risk factors for MIH did not fully explained” … and paragraph 5 in introduction “has been documented as responsible for not only affect amelogenesis…”. “The chance of the less common allele of TGFA rs930655 in addition to the IRF6 marker allele to increase the chance …”

RESPONSE: We made these corrections in the past version.

2. A disorder is used commonly to refer to a group of conditions. The authors need to logically justify why they are using the word “disorder” to refer to MIH in many areas of the manuscript? Otherwise, the word disorder needs to be substituted throughout.

RESPONSE: We revised the text as requested.

Introduction 3. First paragraph, line 7: Did the authors omit the preposition “with” mistakenly in the sentence “usually permanent incisors”…??? This part of the sentence needs to be rephrased as the involvement of incisors is not always necessary to identify a case of MIH!

RESPONSE: We revised the sentence as suggested.

4. Third paragraph, line 17: “When full maturation is not complete at eruption, a post eruption maturation occurs through mineral ions from the saliva …” All newly eruptive enamel undergoes post eruptive mineralization regardless of the mineralization status of enamel. Please explain why you introduced “post-eruptive mineralization” here? Does it serve any purpose related to the objective of the study? if yes, what?

RESPONSE: We deleted the sentence as suggested

Methods 5. Were the subjects’ medication history collected at 3 years, after 3 years of age, or from birth to 3 years? There are many contradictory and confusing statements. In the beginning of the results section under environmental factors “any type of medications taken after three years of age (Table 4)…” , At the end of the same paragraph “..In both groups we found statistical evidence for an interaction of IRF6 and TGFA genotypes and medication intake at 3 years of age (Table 4)…” Other statements in the discussion section: “The variable medication intake after 3 years of age was created to capture children with history of medication intake from birth and past 3 years….” “another limitation we can point out is that we included only medication taken after 3 years of age…” In the method section: “..any type of medication intake between 3 years of age and the time the sample was collected…” These statements are very confusing and need to be explained? the authors need to be consistent when stating the one (or many) time point(s) where history of medications intake was collected. Please amend and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.

RESPONSE: We revised the text to make it consistent as suggested. The variable was created to captured use of medication from birth and passed 3 years of age.

6. Referring to the previous point and acknowledging that the mineralization of the first permanent molar takes place from birth up to 3-4 years, why did the authors set up the cut off age to after 3 years to collect medication history? please give detailed explanation.

RESPONSE: 3 years of age is likely easier to remember because the child has achieved a vocabulary of 200 words and most pf what she says can be understood. We added a comment in the discussion to address this concern.

7. What was the reason behind the limited availability of the medication’s intake history to two cohorts out of the four cohorts?

RESPONSE: This variable was not included in these original studies.

8. Referring to the supplemental document, the subjects’ health data were collected from health records in the Rio de Janeiro, Brazil cohort, while structured data questionnaires were used to collect the same data from the Federal University of Paraná cohort. Explain the following issue: a. What do the authors think about the non- homogenous method of collecting medication history between cohorts (questionnaire in one cohort and medical records in another cohort)? this needs to be emphasized in the limitation paragraph in the discussion. How would the previous limitation affect the results of this study? Discussion § Paragraph 1, line 4: the author wanted to emphasize the geographical variations of MIH estimates, however, the generalizability of the declining trend between north and south MIH estimates needs to be addressed with caution!, first of all because the study includes cohorts from south America (Brazil) and the south European/Mediterranean regions. Second, this “claimed” trend is actually reversed when the south American MIH prevalence estimates is compared with the recently published north American MIH estimates (10% - 13% ). Thus, the statement needs to be rephrased to reflect the populations studied!

RESPONSE: We added the suggested limitation on how the data were collected depending on the cohort. The best estimated frequency is Brazil is 13% as well and aligns of the figures from North America. We added a comment in the discussion to acknowledge this reviewer‘s comment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal letter2_PLoS One MIH.docx

Decision Letter 2

JJ Cray Jr

21 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24540R2

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vieira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There is one particular concern that should be addressed about the patient medication history. Also if the authors could do another run through for grammar and readibility.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: 1. The English language still needs to be revised. There are many grammar mistakes.

____________________________________________________________________________________

2. The authors response to point 6 where the reviewer is questioning the cut off of 3 years to collect medication history is not satisfying nor convincing.

How is the child's vocabulary status be a valid reason to choose this cut off age, when we know the the medication history is collected through direct questioning of the parent/caregiver?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Many sentences need to be re-written in a third person narrative

This sentence is one example but this style needs to be adopted through the manuscript.

"The fact that we did not always have detailed information about the type of medication the patients were taking due to self-reporting of this information forced us to include any type of medication intake in the

analysis. However, these were not vitamins or other supplements. But we are aware that this kind of observational study that aims to recover information from many years prior suffers from potential issues related to recall bias. For these reasons, we ask that our results are taken cautiously.”

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Azza Tagelsir Ahmed

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 2 PLOS response to the authors.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0241898. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241898.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Oct 2020

Point-by-point response to reviewer 2:

Reviewer #2: 1. The English language still needs to be revised. There are many grammar mistakes.

RESPONSE: We carefully revised the text for grammar and typos. We did not find many grammar mistakes but corrected the ones identified.

2. The authors response to point 6 where the reviewer is questioning the cut off of 3 years to collect medication history is not satisfying nor convincing.

How is the child's vocabulary status be a valid reason to choose this cut off age, when we know the the medication history is collected through direct questioning of the parent/caregiver?

RESPONSE: We added more detail in the methods to address this concern. Evidence of cuspal enamel formation of first permanent molars can be detected past 3 years of age.

The comment of the vocabulary was in regard to recall bias, not enamel formation.

3. Many sentences need to be re-written in a third person narrative

This sentence is one example but this style needs to be adopted through the manuscript.

"The fact that we did not always have detailed information about the type of medication the patients were taking due to self-reporting of this information forced us to include any type of medication intake in the

analysis. However, these were not vitamins or other supplements. But we are aware that this kind of observational study that aims to recover information from many years prior suffers from potential issues related to recall bias. For these reasons, we ask that our results are taken cautiously.”

RESPONSE: We made the changes to adequate to the style the reviewer is requesting.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebutal letter3_PLoS One MIH.docx

Decision Letter 3

JJ Cray Jr

23 Oct 2020

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

PONE-D-20-24540R3

Dear Dr. Vieira,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

JJ Cray Jr., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

JJ Cray Jr

26 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24540R3

Gene-environment interaction in molar-incisor hypomineralization

Dear Dr. Vieira:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. JJ Cray Jr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw genotypes, Curitiba (UFPR).

    (XLSX)

    S2 File. Raw genotypes, Curitiba (PUCPR).

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Raw genotypes, Rio de Janeiro.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. Raw genotypes, Istanbul.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviewer comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal letter_PLoS One MIH.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Reviewer comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal letter2_PLoS One MIH.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review 2 PLOS response to the authors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebutal letter3_PLoS One MIH.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES