4.7 Article

Paraoxonase status in coronary heart disease - Are activity and concentration more important than genotype?

Journal

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 9, Pages 1451-1457

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hq0901.094247

Keywords

paraoxonase; oxidation; coronary heart disease; genetic polymorphisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human serum paraoxonase (PON1) hydrolyzes oxidized lipids in low density lipoprotein (LDL) and could therefore retard the development of atherosclerosis. In keeping with this hypothesis, several case-control studies have shown a relationship between the presence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and polymorphisms at amino acid positions 55 and 192 of PON1, which we associated with a decreased capacity of PON1 to protect LDL against the accumulation of lipid peroxides, but some other studies have not. However, the PON1 polymorphisms are only 1 factor in determining the activity and concentration of the enzyme. Only 3 of the previous 18 studies directly determined PON1 activity and concentration. Therefore, we studied PON1 activity, concentration, and gene distribution in 417 subjects with angiographically proven CHD and in 282 control subjects. We found that PON1 activity and concentration were significantly lower in subjects with CHD than in control subjects (activity to paraoxon 122.8 [3.3 to 802.8] versus 214.6 [26.3 to 620.8] nmol . min(-1) . mL(-1), P<0.001; concentration 71.6 [11.4 to 489.3] versus 89.1 [16.8 to 527.4] g/mL, P<0.001). There were no differences in the PON1-55 and -192 polymorphisms or clusterin concentration between patients with CHD and control subjects. These results indicate that lower PON1 activity and concentration and, therefore, the reduced ability to prevent LDL lipid peroxidation may be more important in determining the presence of CHD than paraoxonase genetic polymorphisms.

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