4.4 Article

LPIN1 genetic variation is associated with rosiglitazone response in type 2 diabetic patients

Journal

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
Volume 95, Issue 1-2, Pages 96-100

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2008.06.011

Keywords

genetic association; lipin; SNP; rosiglitazone; type 2 diabetes; pharmacogenetics

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [AO30001]
  2. Yonsei University College of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lipin1 protein, a product of the LPIN1 gene, is required for normal adipose tissue development and metabolism. Lipin1 deficiency results in immature adipocyte development in cases of mouse fatty liver dystrophy and human lipodystrophy. Recently, pioglitazone has been reported to increase human adipocyte lipin1 expression. We evaluated the effects of LPIN1 polymorphisms on rosiglitaizone response in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). A total of 262 patients were treated with 12 weeks of rosiglitazone (4 mg/ day) in addition to their previous drug regimen medications. Six single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the LPIN1 locus were genotyped: rs11693809, rs10192566, rs2278513, rs2577262, rs2716610, and rs1050800. Because rs11693809, rs10192566, and rs2278513 are in nearly complete linkage disequilibrium (D'> 0.958, r(2) > 0.882). we analyzed rs10192566, rs2577262, rs2716610, and rs1050800. Rs10192566 was significantly associated with rosiglitazone treatment response. Patients with the G allele in rs10192566 had a larger decrease in fasting plasma glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, and HbA1c than those without. This genetic effect remained significant after adjustment for age, sex, and initial body weight. No other SNPs were associated with response. These data suggest that LPIN1 genetic variations can affect rosiglitazone treatment response in T2DM. (C) 2008 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available