4.7 Article

Apolipoprotein genotype does not influence MS severity, cognition, or brain atrophy

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 13, Pages 1018-1025

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181b9c85e

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The influence of APOE allelic heterogeneity on multiple sclerosis (MS) disease severity has been reported in multiple datasets with conflicting results. Several studies have reported an unfavorable association of APOE epsilon 4 with more severe clinical disease course while, in contrast, APOE epsilon 2 has been associated with a more benign disease course. In this study, we examine the influence of heterogeneity of the APOE gene on disease severity in a large, Australian, population-based MS cohort. Methods: Associations between APOE allele status, 2 promoter region single nucleotide polymorphisms (- 219 G/T and + 113 C/G), and 4 measures of disease severity were tested in 1,006 patients with relapsing-remitting MS and secondary progressive MS: 1) Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score; 2) Progression Index (Expanded Disability Status Scale/disease duration); 3) age at first symptom; and 4) interval between the first and second attack. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test was used as a single cognitive marker in 889 patients. Brain atrophy was measured in 792 patients using the intercaudate ratio. APOE epsilon 4 and epsilon 3 carriers were stratified by - 219 G/T or + 113 C/G to investigate haplotypic heterogeneity in the APOE gene region. Results: In this MS study, neither APOE allele status nor promoter region heterogeneity at positions - 219 G/T or + 113 C/G influenced the clinical disease severity, cognition, or cerebral atrophy. Conclusions: Allelic and haplotypic heterogeneity of the APOE gene region does not influence multiple sclerosis disease course in this well-defined Australian multiple sclerosis cohort. Neurology (R) 2009;73:1018-1025

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available