4.2 Article

Genome, epigenome and transcriptome analyses of a pair of monozygotic twins discordant for systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

HUMAN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 170-175

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2012.11.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [22390199, 22591090]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan
  3. National Hospital Organization
  4. Daiwa Securities Health Foundation
  5. Japan Research Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology
  6. Nakatomi Foundation
  7. Takeda Science Foundation
  8. Abbott Japan Co., Ltd.
  9. Astellas Pharma Inc.
  10. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  11. Eisai Co., Ltd.
  12. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation
  13. Merck Sharp and Dohme Inc.
  14. Pfizer Japan Inc.
  15. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
  16. Teijin Pharma Limited
  17. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390199, 22591090] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information to distinguish genetic and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of multifactorial diseases can be obtained by investigation of disease development in monozygotic twins. Recent reports have shown that there are genomic and epigenomic differences between monozygotic twins. Genomic/epigenomic and gene expression analyses were performed in monozygotic twins discordant for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to find the genes playing important roles in SLE pathogenesis. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and copy number variation (CNV) typing, CpG methylation and gene expression were analyzed. The discordances in SNPs and CNVs were not confirmed. Both CpG methylation and gene expression levels were different for 10 genes. There were no genomic differences between monozygotic twins discordant for SLE, but epigenomic and gene expression differences were detected. These findings provide information for better understanding of SLE pathogenesis. (c) 2012 American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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