4.6 Article

A Non-Synonymous Coding Variant (L616F) in the TLR5 Gene Is Potentially Associated with Crohn's Disease and Influences Responses to Bacterial Flagellin

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061326

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR-IBD NET GRANT, Institute of Infection and Immunity)
  2. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ), Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: Although numerous studies have implicated TLR5, or its ligands, bacterial flagellins, in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD), genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have not reported associations with the TLR5 gene. We aimed to examine potential CD-associated TLR5 variants and assess whether they modified inflammatory responses to bacterial flagellins. Methods and Principal Results: A two-stage study was carried out. In stage 1, we genotyped tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (tag-SNPs) in the TLR5 gene in a sample of CD cases (<20 years of age, N = 566) and controls (N = 536). Single SNP and haplotype analysis was carried out. In Stage 2, we assessed the functional significance of potential CD-associated variant(s) vis-a-vis effects on the inflammatory response to bacterial flagellin using HEK293T cells. We observed marginal association between a non-synonymous coding SNP rs5744174 (p = 0.05) and CD. Associations between SNP rs851139 that is in high linkage disequilibrium (LD) with SNP rs5744174 were also suggested (p = 0.07). Haplotype analysis revealed that a 3 marker haplotype was significantly associated with CD (p = 0.01). Functional studies showed that the risk allele (616F) (corresponding to the C allele of SNP rs5744174) conferred significantly greater production of CCL20 in response to a range of flagellin doses than the comparator allele (616L). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a non-synonymous coding variation in the TLR5 gene may confer modest susceptibility for CD.

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