4.2 Article

Association of TNF, MBL, and VDR polymorphisms with leprosy phenotypes

Journal

HUMAN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 71, Issue 10, Pages 992-998

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2010.07.001

Keywords

Mycobacterium leprae; TNF; Mannose binding lectin; Vitamin D receptor; Genetic polymorphism

Categories

Funding

  1. Heiser Program for Research in Tuberculosis and Leprosy
  2. National Institutes of Health [AI 22616, AI 54361]
  3. Leprosy Mission International

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although genetic variants in tumor necrosis factor (TNF), mannose binding lectin (MBL), and the vitamin D receptor (VDR) have been associated with leprosy clinical outcomes, these findings have not been extensively validated. We used a case-control study design with 933 patients in Nepal, which included 240 patients with type I reversal reaction (RR), and 124 patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) reactions. We compared genotype frequencies in 933 cases and 101 controls of seven polymorphisms, including a promoter region variant in TNF (G - 308A), three polymorphisms in MBL (C154T, G161A and G170A), and three variants in VDR (FokI, BsmI, and TaqI). We observed an association between TNF 308A and protection from leprosy with an odds ratio of 0.52 (95% confidence interval = 0.29 - 0.95, p = 0.016). MBL polymorphism G161A was associated with protection from lepromatous leprosy (odds ratio = 0.33, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.85, p = 0.010). VDR polymorphisms were not associated with leprosy phenotypes. These results confirm previous findings of an association of TNF - 308A with protection from leprosy and MBL polymorphisms with protection from lepromatous leprosy. The statistical significance was modest and will require further study for conclusive validation. (C) 2010 American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available