4.7 Article

The apolipoprotein A-V genotype and plasma apolipoprotein A-V and triglyceride levels: prospective risk of type 2 diabetes. Results from the Northwick Park Heart Study II

Journal

DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 49, Issue 10, Pages 2337-2340

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-006-0387-0

Keywords

APOA5; ApoAV levels; gene; type 2 diabetes risk

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [NHLBI 33014] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/hypothesis We sought to establish the relationship between plasma apolipoprotein A-V (APOA5, previously known as apoA-V) and triglyceride levels and to determine the impact of the APOA5 genotype on APOA5 levels and development of type 2 diabetes in a 15-year follow-up study of healthy UK men. Materials and methods APOA5 -1131T > C and S19W genotypes were determined in 2,490 men, of whom 145 subsequently developed type 2 diabetes. In a subset of 299 men, we also determined APOA5 levels. Results Plasma APOA5 levels positively correlated with triglycerides (r=0.18, p < 0.002) and were not different in men who subsequently developed type 2 diabetes compared with healthy men (p=0.7). Carriers of either APOA5 W19 or -1131C had, as expected, higher plasma triglycerides. However, while W19 carriers had significantly higher APOA5 levels (p=0.0003), APOA5 levels were not associated with -1131T > C (p=0.63), reinforcing the idea that the reported -1131C association with triglycerides levels is due to linkage disequilibrium with variants in the APOC3 gene, and not due to the direct effect on APOA5 levels. Overall no effect of APOA5 -1131T > C or S19W was found on type 2 diabetes risk. Conclusions/interpretation In contrast to animal studies, in man, plasma APOA5 positively correlates with plasma triglyceride levels. In prospective analysis, with the caveat that numbers were small, APOA5 genotypes do not appear to have an impact on risk of development of type 2 diabetes.

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