4.7 Article

Missense Variants in HIF1A and LACC1 Contribute to Leprosy Risk in Han Chinese

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 794-805

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.03.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573034, 31271346]
  2. West Light Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. CAS-TWAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and genome-wide linkage studies (GWLSs) have identified numerous risk genes affecting the susceptibility to leprosy. However, most of the reported GWAS hits are noncoding variants and account for only part of the estimated heritability for this disease. In order to identify additional risk genes and map the potentially functional variants within the GWAS loci, we performed a three-stage study combining whole-exome sequencing (WES; discovery stage), targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS; screening stage), and refined validation of risk missense variants in 1,433 individuals with leprosy and 1,625 healthy control individuals from Yunnan Province, Southwest China. We identified and validated a rare damaging variant, rs142179458 (c.1045G>A [p.Asp349Asn]) in HIF1A, as contributing to leprosy risk (p = 4.95 x 10(-9), odds ratio [OR] = 2.266). We were able to show that affected individuals harboring the risk allele presented with multibacillary leprosy at an earlier age (p = 0.025). We also confirmed the association between missense variant rs3764147 (c.760A>G [p.Ile254Val]) in the GWAS hit LACC1 (formerly Cl3orf31) and leprosy (p = 6.11 x 10(-18), OR = 1.605). By using the population attributable fraction, we have shown that HIF1A and LACC1 are the major genes with missense variants contributing to leprosy risk in our study groups. Consistently, mRNA expression levels of both HIF1A and LA CCI were upregulated in the skin lesions of individuals with leprosy and in Mycobacterium leprae-stimulated cells, indicating an active role of HIF1A and LACCI in leprosy 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

4.7
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