4.6 Article

Susceptibility of multiple polymorphisms in ADIPOQ, ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 genes to myocardial infarction in Han Chinese

期刊

GENE
卷 658, 期 -, 页码 10-17

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2018.03.022

关键词

Adiponectin; Association; Myocardial infarction; Nomogram; Risk

资金

  1. Nature Science Foundation of Hebei Province [H2015105032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to investigate the association of 12 extensively studied polymorphisms in adiponectin (ADIPOQ), adiponectin receptor-1 (ADIPOR1) and adiponectin receptor-2 (ADIPOR2) genes with myocardial infarction in Han Chinese. This is a hospital-based, cross-sectional, case-control study, including 717 myocardial infarction patients and 612 controls. Myocardial infarction was confirmed through electrocardiogram/anatomopathological examinations. All polymorphisms met the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (p > 0.05). The genotype/allele counts of ADIPOQ gene rs2241766 (p = 0.001/0.003) and ADIPOR2 gene rs10773989 (p < 0.001/ = 0.008) differed significantly between patients and controls. Under the recessive model, rs2241766 (odds ratio [OR] = 4.16, 95% confidence interval [Cl]: 1.83-9.49, p = 0.001) and rs10773989 (OR = 8.40, 95% CI: 2.54-27.8, p < 0.001) were associated with the significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction. Haplotype analysis revealed none or marginal significance, and there was no likelihood of genetic interaction as indicated by multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR). Logistic regression analysis indicated that age, total cholesterol, hypertension, rs2241766, rs1342387, rs10773989 and rs1044471 were significant contributors, and a nomo-gram based on these contributors exhibited a good predictive utility (C-index: 0.795, p < 0.001). Our findings demonstrate that two polymorphisms, rs2241766 in ADIPOQ gene and rs10773989 in ADIPOR2 gene, especially under the recessive model of inheritance, played independent leading roles in susceptibility to myocardial infarction in Han Chinese.

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