4.6 Article

An exome-wide sequencing study of lipid response to high-fat meal and fenofibrate in Caucasians from the GOLDN cohort

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 59, 期 4, 页码 722-729

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.P080333

关键词

whole-exome sequencing; rare variant; high-density lipoprotein; low-density lipoprotein; triglyceride; cholesterol; genetics; epidemiology; postprandial lipemia

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01HL072524, R01HL091357, U01 HL072515, P30 DK072488]
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant [2015-67015-22975]
  3. US Department of Agriculture Aquaculture Research Program Competitive Grant [2014-70007-22395]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding of genetic influences on the response of lipids to specific interventions is limited. In this study, we sought to elucidate effects of rare genetic variants on lipid response to a high-fat meal challenge and fenofibrate (FFB) therapy in the Genetics of Lipid Lowering Drugs and Diet Network (GOLDN) cohort using an exome-wide sequencing-based association study. Our results showed that the rare coding variants in ITGA7, SIPA1L2, and CEP72 are significantly associated with fasting LDL cholesterol response to FFB (P = 1.24E-07), triglyceride postprandial area under the increase (AUI) (P = 2.31E-06), and triglyceride postprandial AUI response to FFB (P = 1.88E-06), respectively. We sought to replicate the association for SIPA1L2 in the Heredity and Phenotype Intervention (HAPI) Heart Study, which included a high-fat meal challenge but not FFB treatment. The associated rare variants in GOLDN were not observed in the HAPI Heart study, and thus the gene-based result was not replicated. For functional validation, we found that gene transcript level of SIPA1L2 is associated with triglyceride postprandial AUI (P < 0.05) in GOLDN. Our study suggests unique genetic mechanisms contributing to the lipid response to the high-fat meal challenge and FFB therapy.

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