Variations in the form of the human face, which plays a role in our individual identities and societal interactions and exhibits extreme forms in a broad range of craniofacial syndromes and birth defects, have fascinated both geneticists and developmental biologists. Here, we review our current understanding of the genetics underlying variation in craniofacial morphology and dysmorphology, synthesizing decades of progress on Mendelian syndromes in addition to more recent results from genome-wide association studies of human facial shape and disease risk. We also discuss the various approaches used to phenotype and quantify facial shape, which are of particular importance due to the complex, multipartite nature of the craniofacial form. We close by discussing how experimental studies have contributed and will further contribute to our understanding of human genetic variation and then proposing future directions and applications for the field. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 23 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Facial ancestry can be described as variation that exists in facial features that are shared amongst members of a population due to environmental and genetic effects. Even within Europe, faces vary among subregions and may lead to confounding in genetic association studies if unaccounted for. Genetic studies use genetic principal components (PCs) to describe facial ancestry to circumvent this issue. Yet the phenotypic effect of these genetic PCs on the face has yet to be described, and phenotype-based alternatives compared. In anthropological studies, consensus faces are utilized as they depict a phenotypic, not genetic, ancestry effect. In this study, we explored the effects of regional differences on facial ancestry in 744 Europeans using genetic and anthropological approaches. Both showed similar ancestry effects between subgroups, localized mainly to the forehead, nose, and chin. Consensus faces explained the variation seen in only the first three genetic PCs, differing more in magnitude than shape change. Here we show only minor differences between the two methods and discuss a combined approach as a possible alternative for facial scan correction that is less cohort dependent, more replicable, non-linear, and can be made open access for use across research groups, enhancing future studies in this field.