4.6 Article

Variation Within DNA Repair Pathway Genes and Risk of Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 172, 期 2, 页码 217-224

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq086

关键词

decision trees; DNA repair; epistasis; genetic; genetic variation; multiple sclerosis

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0700061]
  2. Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre
  3. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG 4201-A-1]
  4. Medical Research Council [G0700061] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [G0700061] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex autoimmune disease of the central nervous system with a prominent genetic component. The primary genetic risk factor is the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1*1501 allele; however, much of the remaining genetic contribution to MS has not been elucidated. The authors investigated the relation between variation in DNA repair pathway genes and risk of MS. Single-locus association testing, epistatic tests of interactions, logistic regression modeling, and nonparametric Random Forests analyses were performed by using genotypes from 1,343 MS cases and 1,379 healthy controls of European ancestry. A total of 485 single nucleotide polymorphisms within 72 genes related to DNA repair pathways were investigated, including base excision repair, nucleotide excision repair, and double-strand breaks repair. A single nucleotide polymorphism variant within the general transcription factor IIH, polypeptide 4 gene, GTF2H4, on chromosome 6p21.33 was significantly associated with MS (odds ratio = 0.7, P = 3.5 x 10(-5)) after accounting for multiple testing and was not due to linkage disequilibrium with HLA-DRB1*1501. Although other candidate genes examined here warrant further follow-up studies, collectively, these results derived from a well-powered study do not support a strong role for common variation within DNA repair pathway genes in MS.

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