4.6 Article

Host genetic risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia

Journal

GENE
Volume 518, Issue 2, Pages 449-456

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2012.10.027

Keywords

Community-acquired pneumonia; Gene polymorphism; Multi-locus model; ROC analysis; CYP1A1

Funding

  1. Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences program Fundamental sciences for medicine-2012
  2. Fundamental Research Programs of the Russian Academy of Sciences Biodiversity and dynamics of gene pools
  3. Biological Diversity, subdivision Gene Pools and Genetic Diversity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was conducted to establish the contribution of genetic host factors in the susceptibility to community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the Russian population. Patients with CAP (n=334), volunteers without a previous history of CAP, constantly exposed to infectious agents, control A group (n=141) and a second control group B consisted of healthy persons (n=314) were included in the study. All subjects were genotyped for 13 polymorphic variants in the genes of xenobiotics detoxification CYP1A1 (rs2606345, rs4646903, and rs1048943), GSTM1 (Ins/del), GSTT1 (Ins/del), ABCB1 rs1045642); immune and inflammation response IL-6 (rs1800795), TNF-alpha (rs1800629), MBL2 (rs7096206), CCR5 (rs333), NOS3 (rs1799983), angiotensin-converting enzyme ACE (rs4340), and occlusive vascular disease/hyperhomocysteinemia MTHFR (rs1801133). Seven polymorphic variants in genes CYP1A1, GSTM1, ABCB1, NOS3, IL6, CCR5 and ACE were associated with CAP. For two genes CYP1A1 and GSTM1 associations remained significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Multiple analysis by the number of all risk genotypes showed a highly significant association with CAP (P=2.4x10(-7), OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.98-4.64) with the threshold for three risk genotypes. Using the ROC-analysis, the AUC value for multi-locus model was estimated as 68.38. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available