4.7 Review

Genetics of Cardiovascular Disease: How Far Are We from Personalized CVD Risk Prediction and Management?

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22084182

Keywords

cardiovascular disease; gene; interaction; polymorphism; gene score; epigenetic

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic under the Conceptual Development of Research Organizations (Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine-IKEM) [IN 00023001]
  2. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, AZV [NV18-01-00046, 17-28882A, NU-20-06-00061, NU21-01-00146]
  3. Ministry of Health, Czech Republic-Conceptual Development of Research Organization, General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic [64165]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite advances in molecular genetics and new tools for identifying new genes and variants related to cardiovascular disease (CVD), there is still some ambiguity in using genetic risk scores for predicting CVD risk. Future research should focus on regulatory molecules and epigenetic changes to further understand genetic factors contributing to CVD.
Despite the rapid progress in diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), this disease remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity. Recent progress over the last two decades in the field of molecular genetics, especially with new tools such as genome-wide association studies, has helped to identify new genes and their variants, which can be used for calculations of risk, prediction of treatment efficacy, or detection of subjects prone to drug side effects. Although the use of genetic risk scores further improves CVD prediction, the significance is not unambiguous, and some subjects at risk remain undetected. Further research directions should focus on the second level of genetic information, namely, regulatory molecules (miRNAs) and epigenetic changes, predominantly DNA methylation and gene-environment interactions.

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