4.5 Article

Immunoregulatory gene polymorphisms in women with preeclampsia

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 384-388

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hr.2010.247

关键词

costimulatory molecules; gene polymorphism; immunotolerance; preeclampsia

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa [07/57446-0]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The costimulatory molecules CD28, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4) and inducible costimulator (ICOS) are believed to have a critical modulatory role in the immune response. However, few studies have been performed on the role of these immune regulatory molecules and their polymorphisms in women with preeclampsia (PE). The aim of our study was to evaluate the CTLA4 (+49 A/G) (rs 231775), CD28 (+17 T/C) (rs 3116496) and ICOS (-1564 T/C) (rs 4675378) gene polymorphisms in Brazilian women with PE. This case-control study included 130 patients with PE and 261 control women without any obstetric or systemic disorders. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood, and the polymorphism genotyping was performed by digesting the PCR products with the restriction endonucleases BbvI (CTLA-4), Afel (CD28) and AluI (ICOS). Data were analyzed by X-2 or Fisher's exact test; a P-value of < 0.05 was considered as significant. There were significant differences in the ICOS genotype and allelic frequencies between the PE and control groups (P=0.01 and P=0.01, respectively). We found a significantly lower frequency of the ICOS (-1564) T allele in women with mild PE compared with the controls. There were no differences in the CTLA-4 (+49 A/G) and CD28 (+17 T/C) genotypes and allelic frequencies between the PE patients and controls. Our data suggest that PE is associated with ICOS, but is not associated with the CTLA-4 or CD28 gene polymorphisms. Hypertension Research (2011) 34, 384-388; doi:10.1038/hr.2010.247; published online 16 December 2010

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

4.5
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