4.6 Article

Variants in toll-like receptors 2 and 9 influence susceptibility to pulmonary tuberculosis in Caucasians, African-Americans, and West Africans

期刊

HUMAN GENETICS
卷 127, 期 1, 页码 65-73

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0741-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [R01 HL068534]
  2. NIH [K24AI001833]
  3. MRC award [G0000690]
  4. Danish Medical Research Council
  5. Danish society of respiratory medicine
  6. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL068534] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [K24AI001833] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tuberculosis (TB) is a global public health problem and a source of preventable deaths each year, with 8.8 million new cases of TB and 1.6 million deaths worldwide in 2005. Approximately, 10% of infected individuals develop pulmonary or extrapulmonary TB, suggesting that host defense factors influence development of active disease. Toll-like receptor' (TLR) polymorphisms have been associated with regulation of TLR expression and development of active TB. In the present study, 71 polymorphisms in TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, TLR6, and TLR9 were examined from 474 (295 cases and 179 controls) African-Americans, 381 (237 cases and 144 controls) Caucasians, and from 667 (321 cases and 346 controls) Africans from Guinea-Bissau for association with pulmonary TB using generalized estimating equations and logistic regression. Statistically significant associations were observed across populations at TLR9 and TLR2. The strongest evidence for association came at an insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism (-196 to -174) in TLR2 that associated with TB in both Caucasians (II vs. ID&DD, OR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.24-0.68], p = 0.0007) and Africans (II vs. ID&DD, OR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.51-0.95], p = 0.023). Our findings in three independent population samples indicate that variations in TLR2 and TLR9 might play important roles in determining susceptibility to TB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据