4.6 Article

Genetic and non-genetic factors that increase the risk of non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate development

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 393-399

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.12292

关键词

cleft lip and; or palate; gene polymorphisms; folic acid; alcohol consumption

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Sao Paulo (FAPESP), Sao Paulo, Brazil [2008/05064-9]
  2. CNPq, Brazil
  3. CAPES, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesWe investigated the relationship between non-syndromic cleft lip/palate (NSCLP) and polymorphisms in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), methionine synthase (MTR), methionine synthase reductase (MTRR), and RFC1, as well as the corresponding interactions with environmental factors. Subjects and MethodsOne hundred and forty NSCLP patients and their mothers, as well as 175 control individuals and their mothers, were recruited. Information regarding smoking and alcohol consumption was recorded. Blood samples were obtained in order to measure serum folate and cobalamin, as well as, plasma total homocysteine concentrations and to extract DNA. Polymorphisms in MTHFR(677C>T and 1298A>C), MTR(2756A>G), MTR(66A>G), and RFC1(80A>G) were analyzed by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism. ResultsAmong the patients, 59.5% had cleft lip and palate, 22.0% had cleft palate, and 18.5% had cleft lip only. Maternal alcohol consumption and reduced folic acid concentrations in both children and mothers (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively) were risk factors for NSCLP. Patients and their mothers carrying the MTHFR 667T allele showed lower serum folate than CC (P=0.011 and P=0.030, respectively). Mothers who carried the MTHFR 1298C allele exhibited increased risk of having a child with NSCLP, after adjusting for alcohol consumption (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.03-2.99, P=0.038). ConclusionsReduced folic acid levels, alcohol consumption, and the MTHFR 677T and 1298C alleles may have contributed to NSCLP development in this sample population from Rio Grande do Norte.

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