4.8 Article

DNA polymorphisms at the BCL11A, HBS1L-MYB, and β-globin loci associate with fetal hemoglobin levels and pain crises in sickle cell disease

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0804799105

关键词

genetic modifier; single nucleotide polymorphism; globin gene regulation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (S.H.O.)
  3. Medical Scientist Training Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a debilitating monogenic blood disorder with a highly variable phenotype characterized by severe pain crises, acute clinical events, and early mortality. Interindividual variation in fetal hemoglobin (HbF) expression is a known and potentially heritable modifier of SCD severity. High HbF levels are correlated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the BCL11A and HBS1L-MYB loci have been implicated previously in HbF level variation in nonanemic European populations. We recently demonstrated an association between a BCL11A SNP and HbF levels in one SCD cohort [Uda M, et al. (2008)Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1620-1625]. Here, we genotyped additional BCL11A SNIPS, HBS1L-MYB SNIPS, and an SNP upstream of (G)gamma-globin (HBG2; the Xmnl polymorphism), in two independent SCD cohorts: the African American Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease (CSSCD) and an SCD cohort from Brazil. We studied the effect of these SNIPS on HbF levels and on a measure of SCD-related morbidity (pain crisis rate). We strongly replicated the association between these SNPs and HbF level variation (in the CSSCD, P values range from 0.04 to 2 x 10(-42)). Together, common SNIPS at the BCL11A, HBS1L-MYB, and beta-globin (HBB) loci account for >20% of the variation in HbF levels in SCD patients. We also have shown that HbF-associated SNPs associate with pain crisis rate in SCD patients. These results provide a clear example of inherited common sequence variants modifying the severity of a monogenic 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

4.8
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