4.2 Article

Polymorphisms in Autophagy-Related Gene IRGM Are Associated with Susceptibility to Autoimmune Thyroid Diseases

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2018, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/7959707

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670722, 81471004]
  2. Key Disciplines Development of Shanghai Jinshan District [JSZK2015A02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. To date, studies have shown that polymorphisms in an autophagy-related gene, IRGM, are linked with different diseases, especially autoimmune diseases. The present study aimed to examine the roles of IRGM polymorphisms in autoimmune thyroid diseases (AITD). Methods. Three polymorphisms in IRGM gene (rs10065172, rs4958847, and rs13361189) were genotyped in 1569 participants (488 with Graves' disease, 292 with Hashimoto's thyroiditis, and 789 healthy controls) using PCR-based ligase detection reaction method. Gene-disease associations were evaluated for the three SNPs. Results. T allele of rs10065172, A allele of rs4958847, and C allele of rs13361189 were all higher in Graves' disease patients than controls, and the ORs were OR = 1.207 (P = 0.022), OR = 1.207 (P = 0.027), and OR = 1.200 (P = 0.027), respectively. After adjusting for sex and age, rs10065172 and rs13361189 were still associated with GD under both the allele model and dominant model, and the adjusted ORs for rs10065172 were 1.20 (P = 0.033) and 1.33 (P = 0.024), while the adjusted ORs for rs13361189 were 1.19 (P = 0.042) and 1.33 (P = 0.026), respectively. No significant difference was found between Hashimoto's thyroiditis patients and controls. Haplotype analysis found that CTA frequency was distinguishingly higher in Graves' disease patients (OR = 1.195, P = 0.030). The frequency of TCG haplotype was distinguishingly lower in AITD and Graves' disease patients (OR = 0.861, P = 0.044; OR = 0.816, P = 0.017). Conclusions. Our study reveals IRGM as a susceptibility gene of AITD and Graves' disease for the first time.

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

4.2
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