4.5 Article

APOE polymorphism is associated with lipid profile, but not with arterial stiffness in the general population

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-9-128

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the main cause of death and disability in developed countries. In most cases, the progress of CVD is influenced by environmental factors and multifactorial inheritance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between APOE genotypes, cardiovascular risk factors, and a noninvasive measure of arterial stiffness in the Brazilian population. Methods: A total of 1493 urban Brazilian individuals were randomly selected from the general population of the Vitoria City Metropolitan area. Genetic analysis of the APOE polymorphism was conducted by PCR-RFLP and pulse wave velocity analyzed with a noninvasive automatic device. Results: Age, gender, body mass index, triglycerides, creatinine, uric acid, blood glucose, blood pressure phenotypes were no different between epsilon 2, epsilon 3 and epsilon 4 alleles. The epsilon 4 allele was associated with higher total-cholesterol (p < 0.001), LDL-C (p < 0.001), total-cholesterol/HDL-C ratio (p < 0.001), LDL/HDL-C ratio (p < 0.001), lower HDL-C values (p < 0.001) and higher risk to obesity (OR = 1.358, 95% CI = 1.019-1.811) and hyperuricemia (OR = 1.748, 95% CI = 1.170-2.611). Nevertheless, pulse wave velocity (p = 0.66) measures were no different between genotypes. The significant association between APOE genotypes and lipid levels persisted after a 5-year follow-up interval, but no interaction between time and genotype was observed for lipids longitudinal behavior. Conclusion: The epsilon 4 allele of the APOE gene is associated with a worse lipid profile in the Brazilian urban population. In our relatively young sample, the observed effect of APOE genotype on lipid levels was not translated into significant effects in arterial wall stiffness.

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