4.6 Article

Fibrinogen gene variation and ischemic stroke

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 897-904

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02950.x

关键词

fibrinogen; haplotypes; ischemic stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Plasma fibrinogen level and fibrin clot structure are heritable traits that may be of importance in the pathogenesis of ischemic stroke. Objectives: To investigate associations between variation in the fibrinogen gamma (FGG), alpha (FGA) and beta (FGB) genes, fibrinogen level, and ischemic stroke. Methods: The Sahlgrenska Academy Study on Ischemic Stroke comprises 600 cases and 600 matched population controls. Stroke subtypes were defined according to TOAST criteria. Plasma fibrinogen level was measured by an automated clot-rate assay. Eight tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected to capture genetic variation in the FGA, FGG, and FGB genes. Results: Plasma fibrinogen was independently associated with overall ischemic stroke and all subtypes, both in the acute stage (P < 0.001) and at three-month follow-up (P < 0.05). SNPs belonged to two haplotype blocks, one containing the FGB gene and the other the FGG and FGA genes. FGB haplotypes were associated with fibrinogen level (P < 0.01), but not with ischemic stroke. In contrast, FGG/FGA haplotypes showed independent association to ischemic stroke but not to fibrinogen level. In an additive model with the most common FGG/FGA haplotype (A1) as reference, the adjusted odds ratios of ischemic stroke were 1.4 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.1-1.8], P < 0.01, 1.4 (95% CI 1.0-1.8), P < 0.05, and 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1), P < 0.05 for the A2, A3, and A4 FGG/FGA haplotypes, respectively. Conclusion: FGG/FGA haplotypes show association to ischemic stroke. This association is independent of fibrinogen level, thus suggesting that the association between ischemic stroke and variation at the FGG/FGA genes is mediated by qualitative rather than quantitative effects on fibrin(ogen).

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