4.1 Article

Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup associated with hereditary hearing loss in a Japanese population

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 132, 期 11, 页码 1178-1182

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2012.693624

关键词

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms; modifiers; haplotype

资金

  1. Ministry of Education Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [22791577, 21390459, 21680050, A-22240072, B-21390459, C-21590411]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan [H23-kankaku-005]
  3. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare [H23-016, H23-119]
  4. Takeda Science Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21390459, 21680050, 22791577, 24650414, 22659305] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conclusion: Haplogroup D4b, especially subhaplogroup D4b2, may be one of the modifiers associated with the phenotypic expression of hereditary hearing loss (HL). Objectives: The present study investigated the association between suspected hereditary HL and 12 major mtDNA haplogroups in a Japanese population. Besides the mutations of mitochondrial DNA, many modifiers including environmental factors and genetic polymorphisms are involved in HL. Methods: The subjects comprised 373 unrelated Japanese patients with suspected hereditary HL and 480 controls. Twenty of the 373 patients were excluded from the study because the m. 1555A>G or the m. 3243A>G mutation had been detected in them. The mitochondrial haplotypes were classified into 12 major Japanese haplogroups (i.e. F, B, A, N9a, N9b, M7a, M7b, G1, G2, D4a, D4b, and D5). The frequency of each haplogroup in patients with HL was compared with that of the controls using the chi-squared test. Results: The frequency of the HL patients carrying the mitochondrial haplogroup D4b was significantly higher than that of the controls (37/353 [10.5%] vs 31/480 [6.5%]; OR 1.70 [95% CI 1.03-2.79, p = 0.036]) and evidence for enhancement was found in subhaplogroup D4b2 (32/353 [9.1%] vs 24/480 [5%], OR 1.89 [95% CI 1.09-3.28, p = 0.021]).

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

4.1
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