4.7 Review

Functional Genome Analysis for Immune Cells Provides Clues for Stratification of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

期刊

BIOMOLECULES
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biom13040591

关键词

systemic lupus erythematosus; genome wide association study; functional genome analysis; B cell; OXPHOS; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex autoimmune disease influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Recent analysis has revealed the significance of the oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) pathway in the pathogenesis of SLE, showing persistent activation in inactive SLE and its association with organ damage. The discovery that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which improves SLE prognosis, targets toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling upstream of OXPHOS highlights the clinical importance of this pathway. Further studies on OXPHOS-associated disease-susceptibility polymorphisms, gene expression, and protein function may aid in risk stratification of SLE.
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Recently, analysis of a functional genome database of genetic polymorphisms and transcriptomic data from various immune cell subsets revealed the importance of the oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) pathway in the pathogenesis of SLE. In particular, activation of the OXPHOS pathway is persistent in inactive SLE, and this activation is associated with organ damage. The finding that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which improves the prognosis of SLE, targets toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling upstream of OXPHOS suggests the clinical importance of this pathway. IRF5 and SLC15A4, which are regulated by polymorphisms associated with SLE susceptibility, are functionally associated with OXPHOS as well as blood interferon activity and metabolome. Future analyses of OXPHOS-associated disease-susceptibility polymorphisms, gene expression, and protein function may be useful for risk stratification of SLE.

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

4.7
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