4.6 Article

Eczema phenotypes are associated with multiple vitamin D pathway genes in Chinese children

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 118-124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.12337

关键词

children; eczema; haplotype; single nucleotide polymorphism; vitamin D

资金

  1. General Research Funds of Hong Kong Research Grants Council [469908, 470909, 477110]
  2. Research Committee Group Research Scheme [3110060, 3110087]
  3. Chinese University of Hong Kong [2011.1.058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundVitamin D is increasingly recognized to play crucial roles in cutaneous immunity, and vitamin D treatment improved eczema control in small clinical trials. Several vitamin D-related genes were associated with asthma, but there are no data for eczema. MethodsTwenty-three single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of five vitamin D-related genes (CYP27A1, CYP2R1, CYP27B1, GC and VDR) were genotyped in 1442 Chinese children with eczema and 1231 non-allergic controls. SNPs that followed Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and yielded 95% genotyping call-rate were included. Haplotypic associations and SNP-SNP interactions for eczema diagnosis and subphenotypes were analysed. ResultsAtopic eczema was associated with rs4674343 of CYP27A1 (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.83, P = 0.0004). Increased eosinophil percentage was associated with CYP2R1 rs2060793A (P = 0.001) and rs1933064A (P = 0.001). Two CYP2R1 haplotypes increased eczema risk whereas one VDR haplotype lowered eczema risk. GC rs7041 and CYP2R1 rs7935792 interacted to modulate total IgE (cross-validation consistency 10/10, P = 0.047). Specifically, high-risk eczema patients had higher log-transformed total IgE than low-risk patients (2.76 0.76 vs 2.60 +/- 0.80, P = 0.002). ConclusionA vitamin D-related SNP rs4674343 on CYP27A1 was found to be protective against atopic eczema. CYP2R1 and VDR haplotypes altered eczema susceptibility and eosinophil percentage, and GC and CYP2R1 interacted to determine total IgE among eczema patients.

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