4.2 Article

Unraveling the genetics of otitis media: from mouse to human and back again

期刊

MAMMALIAN GENOME
卷 22, 期 1-2, 页码 66-82

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00335-010-9295-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U142670371, MC_UP_1502/1, MC_U142684175, MC_U142684172] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [MC_U142670371, MC_UP_1502/1, MC_U142684172, MC_U142684175] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1502/1, MC_U142684172, MC_U142684175, MC_U142670371] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Otitis media (OM) is among the most common illnesses of early childhood, characterised by the presence of inflammation in the middle ear cavity. Acute OM and chronic OM with effusion (COME) affect the majority of children by school age and have heritability estimates of 40-70%. However, the majority of genes underlying this susceptibility are, as yet, unidentified. One method of identifying genes and pathways that may contribute to OM susceptibility is to look at mouse mutants displaying a comparable phenotype. Single-gene mouse mutants with OM have identified a number of genes, namely, Eya4, Tlr4, p73, MyD88, Fas, E2f4, Plg, Fbxo11, and Evi1, as potential and biologically relevant candidates for human disease. Recent studies suggest that this mouse-to-human approach is likely to yield relevant data, with significant associations reported between polymorphisms at the FBXO11, TLR4, and PAI1 genes and disease in humans. An association between TP73 and chronic rhinosinusitis has also been reported. In addition, the biobanks of available mouse mutants provide a powerful resource for functional studies of loci identified by future genome-wide association studies of OM in humans. Mouse models of OM therefore are an important component of current approaches attempting to understand the complex genetic susceptibility to OM in humans, and which aim to facilitate the development of preventative and therapeutic interventions for this important and common disease.

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