4.7 Review

Review: a meta-analysis of GWAS and age-associated diseases

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 727-731

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00871.x

关键词

p16INK4a; p14ARF; ANRIL; TERT; longevity

资金

  1. Burroughs Wellcome Foundation
  2. NIA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-Wide Association studies (GWAS) offer an unbiased means to understand the genetic basis of traits by identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) linked to causal variants of complex phenotypes. GWAS have identified a host of susceptibility SNPs associated with many important human diseases, including diseases associated with aging. In an effort to understand the genetics of broad resistance to age-associated diseases (i.e., wellness), we performed a meta-analysis of human GWAS. Toward that end, we compiled 372 GWAS that identified 1775 susceptibility SNPs to 105 unique diseases and used these SNPs to create a genomic landscape of disease susceptibility. This map was constructed by partitioning the genome into 200 kb bins and mapping the 1775 susceptibility SNPs to bins based on their genomic location. Investigation of these data revealed significant heterogeneity of disease association within the genome, with 92% of bins devoid of disease-associated SNPs. In contrast, 10 bins (0.06%) were significantly (P < 0.05) enriched for susceptibility to multiple diseases, 5 of which formed two highly significant peaks of disease association (P < 0.0001). These peaks mapped to the Major Histocompatibility (MHC) locus on 6p21 and the INK4/ARF (CDKN2a/b) tumor suppressor locus on 9p21.3. Provocatively, all 10 significantly enriched bins contained genes linked to either inflammation or cellular senescence pathways, and SNPs near regulators of senescence were particularly associated with disease of aging (e.g., cancer, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, glaucoma). This analysis suggests that germline genetic heterogeneity in the regulation of immunity and cellular senescence influences the human healthspan.

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