4.3 Article

Alleles of the major histocompatibility complex play a role in the pathogenesis of pancreatic acinar atrophy in dogs

期刊

IMMUNOGENETICS
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 501-509

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00251-013-0704-y

关键词

Autoimmune; Canine; Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency; Pancreatic acinar atrophy; Major histocompatibility complex

资金

  1. Canine Health Foundation [1497-A, 934]
  2. National Science Foundation [0453360]
  3. Pepsi Refresh Project award
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0453360] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is a disease wherein pancreatic acinar cells fail to synthesize and secrete sufficient amounts of digestive enzymes for normal digestion of food. EPI affects many dog breeds, with a dramatically higher prevalence in the German shepherd dog (GSD) population. In this breed and perhaps others, EPI most often results from degeneration of the acinar cells of the pancreas, a hereditary disorder termed pancreatic acinar atrophy (PAA). Evidence of lymphocytic infiltration indicates that PAA is an autoimmune disease, but the genetic etiology remains unclear. Data from global gene expression and single nucleotide polymorphism profiles in the GSD suggest the involvement of the major histocompatibility complex [MHC; dog leukocyte antigen (DLA)]. To determine if alleles of the MHC influence development of EPI, genotyping of polymorphic class I (DLA-88) and II loci (DLA-DRB1, DLA-DQA1, and DLA-DQB1) was carried out for 70 affected and 63 control GSDs, and four-locus haplotypes were determined. One haplotype containing a novel allele of DLA-88 is very highly associated with EPI (OR > 17; P = 0.000125), while two haplotypes were found to confer protection from EPI (P = 0.00087 and 0.0115). Described herein is the genotyping of MHC class I and II loci in a GSD cohort, establishment of four-locus haplotypes, and association of alleles/haplotypes with EPI.

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

4.3
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