4.7 Article

Has toll-like receptor 4 been prematurely dismissed as an inflammatory bowel disease gene? Association study combined with meta-analysis shows strong evidence for association

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 102, Issue 11, Pages 2504-2512

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01463.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Published association studies of the TLR4 Asp299Gly polymorphism and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in caucasian populations have inconsistent results. We tested two TLR4 variants for association with IBD in the New Zealand caucasian population and assessed the cumulative evidence for association of TLR4 Asp299Gly and IBD. Methods: The TLR4 Asp299Gly and Thr399Ile polymorphisms were genotyped and tested for case-control frequency differences in a New Zealand white cohort of 389 Crohn's disease (CD) patients, 405 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients, and 416 population controls. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed to test whether 299Gly carriage was associated with UC, CD, or phenotypes of CD patients. Results: There were no significant allele or genotype frequency differences between cases and controls or between CD phenotypes in our New Zealand data. Meta-analysis did not identify any significant associations between CD phenotypes and 299Gly carriage. However, meta-analysis demonstrated significantly higher 299Gly carrier frequencies in CD patients (odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.90) and in IBD patients (odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 1.01-1.84) compared to controls. Conclusions: The meta-analysis provides evidence that Asp299Gly is associated with CD and IBD in whites. Only the Asp299Gly polymorphism has been consistently genotyped in previous TLR4 studies with IBD patients, therefore other TLR4 variants with stronger associations with IBD may exist. Additional well-powered studies of Asp299Gly and other TLR4 variants are urgently needed.

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