4.6 Article

The RGS2 (-391, C>G) Genetic Variation Correlates to Antihypertensive Drug Responses in Chinese Patients with Essential Hypertension

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121483

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Scientific Foundation of China [81273595, 30901834, 81001476]
  2. Scientific Foundation of Hunan [11K073, 10JJ4020]
  3. 863 Project [2012AA02A518, NCET-10-0843]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Regulators of G-protein signaling protein 2 (RGS2) play an irreplaceable role in the control of normal blood pressure (BP). One RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation markedly changes its mRNA expression levels. This study explored the relationship between this genetic variation and the responses to antihypertensive drugs in Chinese patients with essential hypertension. Methods Genetic variations of RGS2 were successfully identified in 367 specimens using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) assays. All patients were treated with conventional doses of antihypertensives after a 2-week run-in period and followed-up according to our protocol. A general linear model multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the data analysis. Results A significant difference in the mean systolic BP change was observed between RGS2 (-391, C>G) CC/CG (n = 82) and GG (n = 38) genotype carriers (-13.6 vs. -19.9 mmHg, P = 0.043) who were treated with candesartan, irbesartan or imidapril at the end of 6 weeks. In addition, the patients' BP responses to alpha, beta-adrenergic receptor blockers exhibited an age-specific association with the RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation at the end of 4 weeks. Conclusion The RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic polymorphism may serve as a biomarker to predict a patient's response to antihypertensive drug therapy, but future studies need to confirm this.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available