4.7 Article

Genetic Variants at 13q12.12 Are Associated with High Myopia in the Han Chinese Population

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 88, 期 6, 页码 805-813

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.04.022

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [30900809, 81025006, 81070761, 30871350, 81070751]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 project) [2011CB504604]
  3. Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province, China
  4. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation [R205739, Z2100065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High myopia, which is extremely prevalent in the Chinese population, is one of the leading causes of blindness in the world. Genetic factors play a critical role in the development of the condition. To identify the genetic variants associated with high myopia in the Han Chinese, we conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 493,947 SNPs in 1088 individuals (419 cases and 669 controls) from a Han Chinese cohort and followed up on signals that were associated with p < 1.0 x 10(-4) in three independent cohorts (combined, 2803 cases and 5642 controls). We identified a significant association between high myopia and a variant at 13q12.12 (rs9318086, combined p = 1.91 x 10(-16), heterozygous odds ratio = 1.32, and homozygous odds ratio = 1.64). Furthermore, five additional SNPs (rs9510902, rs3794338, rs1886970, rs7325450, and rs7331047) in the same linkage disequilibrium (LD) block with rs9318086 also proved to be significantly associated with high myopia in the Han Chinese population; p values ranged from 5.46 x 10(-11) to 6.16 x 10(-16). This associated locus contains three genes-MIPEP, C1QTNF9B-AS1, and C1QTNF9B. MIPEP and C1QTNF9B were found to be expressed in the retina and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and are more likely than C1QTNF9B-AS1 to be associated with high myopia given the evidence of retinal signaling that controls eye growth. Our results suggest that the variants at 13q12.12 are associated with high myopia.

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