Skip to main content

Understanding normal cardiac morphogenesis and its disruptions: a journey through pathways

Journal
Frontiers in genetics (Q2)
Published
15 July 2026
Study design
Narrative review / expert opinion
Evidence level
Level 5, Expert Opinion (CEBM 5)
Authors
Aline L Saliba, Jorge Afiune, Aline Pic-Taylor, Silviene F Oliveira, Juliana F Mazzeu
PMID
42524635
DOI
10.3389/fgene.2026.1753998

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Embryology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).

Abstract

Congenital heart diseases (CHDs) encompass a broad spectrum of structural anomalies with substantial clinical and genetic heterogeneity. They are the most common birth defects in humans, and a leading cause of paediatric morbidity and mortality. Yet, its genetic substrate remains difficult to interpret at the bedside: despite advances in cytogenetics and next-generation sequencing, a definitive or candidate genetic cause is identified in fewer than half of cases, and even when a variant is recovered, mapping it onto the developmental program that produces a specific malformation is rarely straightforward for the practising clinician. This narrative review revisits normal cardiogenesis as a single, coordinated developmental program, integrating embryological events with progenitor populations, transcription factor networks, and signalling pathways. We then highlight how perturbation of these developmental modules may result in syndromic and non-syndromic CHD. By aligning embryological events with their regulatory logic, the review offers a developmental framework intended to help clinicians situate molecular findings within the biology of heart formation, sharpen genotype-phenotype interpretation, support more precise diagnostic and prognostic reasoning, and inform emerging regenerative strategies for the malformed and injured heart.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.