4.6 Article

The Association Study between Twenty One Polymorphisms in Seven Candidate Genes and Coronary Heart Diseases in Chinese Han Population

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066976

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81071420]
  2. Key Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province [2010CDA032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in multiple populations identified several genetic loci for coronary heart diseases (CHD). Here we utilized a 2-stage candidate gene association strategy in Chinese Han population to shed light on the putative association between several metabolic-related candidate genes and CHD. At the 1st stage, 190 patients with CHD and 190 controls were genotyped through the MassARRAY platform. At the 2nd stage, a larger sample including 400 patients and 392 controls was genotyped by the High Resolution Melt (HRM) method to confirm or rule out the associations with CHD. MLXIP expression level was quantified by the real time PCR in 65 peripheral blood samples. From the 21 studied single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of seven candidate genes: MLXIPL, MLXIP, MLX, ADIPOR1, VDR, SREBF1 and NR1H3, only one tag SNP rs4758685 (T -> C) was found to be statistically associated with CHD (P-value = 0.02, Odds ratio (OR) of 0.83). After adjustment for the age, sex, lipid levels and diabetes, the association remained significant (P-value = 0.03). After adjustment for the hypertension, P-value became 0.20 although there was a significant difference in the allele distribution between the CHD patients with hypertension and the controls (P-value = 0.04, 406 vs 582). In conclusion, among the 21 tested SNPs, we identified a novel association between rs4758685 of MLXIP gene and CHD. The C allele of common variant rs4758685 interacted with hypertension, and was found to be protective against CHD in both allelic and genotypic models in Chinese Han population.

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