4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Paraoxonase/arylesterase ratio, PON1 192Q/R polymorphism and PON1 status are associated with increased risk of ischernic stroke

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 41, Issue 1-2, Pages 1-9

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2007.08.010

Keywords

paraoxonase; polymorphism; ischemic stroke; risk factors; genes; atherosclerosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: In recent years, importance of enzyme activity measurements, in addition to genotyping, in epidemiological studies relating paraoxonase 1 (PON1) and vascular disease was emphasized. This is the first report evaluating paraoxonase and arylesterase activities as risk factors for ischemic stroke. In addition, PON1 192Gln(Q)/Arg(R) and 55Leu(L)/Met(M) polymorphisms were also analyzed. Design and methods: The study population was comprised of 108 ischemic stroke patients and 78 controls. Enzyme activities were determined by spectrophotometiric assays and for genotyping, standard PCR protocols followed by restriction enzyme digestions were used. Results: The prevalence of the PON1 192RR genotype was increased among stroke patients (16.7%) as compared to controls (9.0%, P=0.129). Paraoxonase and arylesterase activities and PON1 activity ratio (paraoxonase/arylesterase) were found to be lower in patients than in controls. Logistic regression analysis revealed PON1 activity ratio (odds ratio, OR=0.697, 95% Cl, 0.541 to 0.898, P=0.005), PON1 192RR genotype (OR=3.434, 95% Cl, 1.159 to 10.178, P=0.026) and PON1 status (PON1 activity ratio combined with PON1 192RR genotype; OR= 1.406, 95% Cl, 1.038 to 1.905, P=0.028) as significant predictors of stroke. Conclusions: This study identified PON1 activity ratio, PON1 192RR genotype and PON1 status as important risk factors for ischemic stroke. (c) 2007 The Canadian SoClety of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available