4.6 Article

Genome-wide association study identifies genetic factors that modify age at onset in Machado-Joseph disease

期刊

AGING-US
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 4742-4756

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.102825

关键词

Machado-Joseph disease; GWAS; age at onset; ATXN3; modifier

资金

  1. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante
  2. FCT [CEECIND/00684/2017]
  3. Norte Portugal Regional Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000008]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2013/07559-3]
  5. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, Brazil (CNPq)
  6. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  7. Canada Research Chair in Genetics of the Nervous System
  8. Wilder Penfield Chair in Neurosciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Machado-Joseph disease (MJD/SCA3) is the most common form of dominantly inherited ataxia worldwide. The disorder is caused by an expanded CAG repeat in the ATXN3 gene. Past studies have revealed that the length of the expansion partly explains the disease age at onset (AO) variability of MJD, which is confirmed in this study (Pearson's correlation coefficient R-2 = 0.62). Using a total of 786 MJD patients from five different geographical origins, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) was conducted to identify additional AO modifying factors that could explain some of the residual AO variability. We identified nine suggestively associated loci (P < 1 x 10(-5)). These loci were enriched for genes involved in vesicle transport, olfactory signaling, and synaptic pathways. Furthermore, associations between AO and the TRIM29 and RAG genes suggests that DNA repair mechanisms might be implicated in MJD pathogenesis. Our study demonstrates the existence of several additional genetic factors, along with CAG expansion, that may lead to a better understanding of the genotype-phenotype correlation in MJD.

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