4.5 Article

Variant Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2*2) in East Asians Interactively Exacerbates Tobacco Smoking Risk for Coronary Spasm. - Possible Role of Reactive Aldehydes

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 81, 期 1, 页码 96-102

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0969

关键词

Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2; Coronary spastic angina; East Asians; Reactive aldehydes; Tobacco smoking

资金

  1. Japan Heart Foundation, Tokyo
  2. Japan Vascular Disease Research Foundation, Kyoto, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K09446] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Coronary spastic angina (CSA) is common among East Asians and tobacco smoking (TS) is an established risk factor for CSA. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) plays a key role in removing reactive toxic aldehydes and a deficient variant ALDH2 genotype (ALDH2*2) is prevalent among East Asians. We examined the interaction between TS and ALDH2*2 as a risk factor for CSA to better understand the disease pathogenesis. Methods and Results: The study subjects comprised 410 patients (258 men, 152 women; mean age, 66.3 +/- 11.5) in whom intracoronary injection of acetylcholine was performed on suspicion of CSA. ALDH2 genotyping was performed by direct application of the Taqman polymerase chain reaction system. Of the study subjects, 244 had CSA proven and 166 were non-CSA. The frequencies of male sex, ALDH2*2, alcohol flushing syndrome, TS, coronary organic stenosis, and plasma levels of uric acid were higher (P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, and P=0.015, respectively) and that of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol lower (P=0.002) in the CSA than non-CSA group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that ALDH2*2 and TS were significant risk factors for CSA (P<0.001 and P=0.002, respectively). ALDH2*2 exacerbated TS risk for CSA more than the multiplicative effects of each. Conclusions: ALDH2*2 synergistically exacerbates TS risk for CSA, probably through aldehydes.

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