4.5 Article

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma polymorphism is related to peak bone mass: the JPOS study

期刊

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 321-329

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-009-0965-3

关键词

Bone mineral density; Cohort study; Polymorphism; PPAR gamma; Women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed 1,217 women to examine the effect of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors gamma (PPAR gamma) C161 -> aEuro parts per thousand T on bone status. Among 664 premenopausal women, the C161 -> aEuro parts per thousand T is associated with low bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip and femoral neck. Moreover, the odds ratio for osteopenia or osteoporosis at the femoral neck was 1.98 for premenopausal CT/TT genotypes. The impact of PPAR gamma on BMD has not been conclusively established. We examined if PPAR gamma C161T polymorphism is associated with BMD and its change. We conducted a baseline survey in 1996 and a 10-year follow-up survey, Japanese Population-based Osteoporosis Study, with a sample population representative of Japanese women. Of these, 1,217 participants in the 1996 survey were analyzed cross-sectionally, while longitudinal analysis was performed on 563 women. A P value < 0.0042 (=0.05/12 for three menstrual statuses and four skeletal sites) was considered statistically significant after Bonferroni correction in multiple testing for cross-sectional analysis. The total hip and femoral neck BMDs were significantly higher for CC genotype than for CT/TT genotypes among 664 premenopausal women (P = 0.0020, P = 0.0022, respectively). Compared to the CC genotype, the odds ratio for osteopenia or osteoporosis (T-scores below -1) at the femoral neck was 1.98 for premenopausal CT/TT genotypes with statistical significance (P = 0.0041). Change of BMD at either skeletal site during the follow-up period was not significantly different for either menstrual status. We conclude that the PPAR gamma C161T is associated with low peak bone mass.

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