4.5 Article

Ongoing controversies and recent insights of the ARMS2-HTRA1 locus in age-related macular degeneration

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH
卷 210, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2021.108605

关键词

Age-related macular degeneration; ARMS2-HTRA1 gene locus; Extracellular matrix; TGF-Beta signaling; Complement system; Linkage disequilibrium

资金

  1. National Eye Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R01 EY023693, P30 EY022589]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AMD, the leading cause of central vision loss in elderly populations in industrialized countries, is consistently associated with the CFH and ARMS2-HTRA1 loci. While the CFH risk variant alters complement activity, the specific role of the ARMS2-HTRA1 risk haplotype remains unclear. Current research supports HTRA1 as the causative gene for AMD risk, proposing a hypothesis where HTRA1-derived ECM fragments mediate AMD pathogenesis.
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the most common cause of central vision loss among elderly populations in industrialized countries. Genome-wide association studies have consistently associated two genomic loci with progression to late-stage AMD: the complement factor H (CFH) locus on chromosome 1q31 and the age related maculopathy susceptibility 2-HtrA serine peptidase 1 (ARMS2-HTRA1) locus on chromosome 10q26. While the CFH risk variant has been shown to alter complement activity, the ARMS2-HTRA1 risk haplotype remains enigmatic due to high linkage disequilibrium and inconsistent functional findings spanning two genes that are plausibly causative for AMD risk. In this review, we detail the genetic and functional evidence used to support either ARMS2 or HTRA1 as the causal gene for AMD risk, emphasizing both the historical development and the current understanding of the ARMS2-HTRA1 locus in AMD pathogenesis. We conclude by summarizing the evidence in favor of HTRA1 and present our hypothesis whereby HTRA1-derived ECM fragments mediate AMD pathogenesis.

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

4.5
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