4.8 Article

Identification of IRAK1 as a risk gene with critical role in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901181106

关键词

autoimmune disease; genetic association; SNP; inflammation; interferon

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR020143, P20 RR020143, UL1 RR025741] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [P01 AI039824, R37 AI024717, AI24717, R01 AI024717, AI063622, R01 AI063622] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAMS NIH HHS [P01-AR49084, P60-AR48095, AR445650, P50 AR048940, P01 AR049084, R01 AR042460, R01 AR043274, AR043274, AR048940, AR053483, P30 AR053483, AR42460, P60 AR048095, AR049084] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A combined forward and reverse genetic approach was undertaken to test the candidacy of IRAK1 (interleukin-1 receptor associated kinase-1) as an X chromosome-encoded risk factor for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In studying approximate to 5,000 subjects and healthy controls, 5 SNPs spanning the IRAK1 gene showed disease association ( P values reaching 10(-10), odds ratio > 1.5) in both adult- and childhood-onset SLE, in 4 different ethnic groups, with a 4 SNP haplotype ( GGGG) being strongly associated with the disease. The functional role of IRAK1 was next examined by using congenic mouse models bearing the disease loci: Sle1 or Sle3. IRAK1 deficiency abrogated all lupus-associated phenotypes, including IgM and IgG autoantibodies, lymphocytic activation, and renal disease in both models. In addition, the absence of IRAK1 reversed the dendritic cell hyperactivity'' associated with Sle3. Collectively, the forward genetic studies in human SLE and the mechanistic studies in mouse models establish IRAK1 as a disease gene in lupus, capable of modulating at least 2 key checkpoints in disease development. This demonstration of an X chromosome gene as a disease susceptibility factor in human SLE raises the possibility that the gender difference in SLE may in part be attributed to sex chromosome genes.

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