4.7 Article

Unraveling Multiple MHC Gene Associations with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Model Choice Indicates a Role for HLA Alleles and Non-HLA Genes in Europeans

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 778-793

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2012.08.026

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arthritis Research UK [18239] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [5R01CA133996, 3P50CA093459, 5P50CA097007] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [U19 AI067152, R01 AI024717, R37 AI024717, P01 AI083194] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAMS NIH HHS [P60 AR053308] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIEHS NIH HHS [5R01ES011740] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have performed a meta-analysis of the major-histocompatibility-complex (MHC) region in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to determine the association with both SNPs and classical human-leukocyte-antigen (HLA) alleles. More specifically, we combined results from six studies and well-known out-of-study control data sets, providing us with 3,701 independent SLE cases and 12,110 independent controls of European ancestry. This study used genotypes for 7,199 SNPs within the MHC region and for classical HLA alleles (typed and imputed). Our results from conditional analysis and model choice with the use of the Bayesian information criterion show that the best model for SLE association includes both classical loci (HLA-DRB1*03:01, HLA-DRB1*08:01, and HLA-DQA1*01:02) and two SNPs, rs8192591 (in class III and upstream of NOTCH4) and rs2246618 (MICB in class I). Our approach was to perform a stepwise search from multiple baseline models deduced from a priori evidence on HLA-DRB1 lupus-associated alleles, a stepwise regression on SNPs alone, and a stepwise regression on HLA alleles. With this approach, we were able to identify a model that was an overwhelmingly better fit to the data than one identified by simple stepwise regression either on SNPs alone (Bayes factor [BF] > 50) or on classical HLA alleles alone (BF > 1,000).

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