4.7 Article

Lymphotoxin-α and galectin-2 SNPs are not associated with myocardial infarction in two different German populations

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE-JMM
卷 85, 期 9, 页码 997-1004

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00109-007-0211-4

关键词

genetics; lymphotoxin-alpha; galectin-2; myocardial infarction; coronary artery disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent data provided strong evidence for the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the lymphotoxin-alpha (LTA) and galectin-2 (LGALS2) genes with myocardial infarction (MI) in a Japanese population. For populations of other genetic background, the relevance of these polymorphisms in the pathogenesis of MI remains controversial. We aimed to define the role of LTA and LGALS2 SNPs in two German MI populations with markedly different ascertainment strategies. Two different MI populations were studied. In the first population, MI patients were ascertained by a strong family history of MI (n=1214). Controls were unrelated disease-free participants of the study (n=1080). The second population included patients suffering from sporadic (nonfamilial) MI from the German KORA register (n=607). The control group consisted of participants of the WHO MONICA survey in Germany (n=1492). TaqMan assays were used to determine the genotypes of 4 SNPs in the LTA genomic region and 1 SNP in the LGALS2 gene. Single SNPs in both genomic regions as well as haplotypes in the LTA genomic region were tested for association in various models of inheritance. No association with MI could be found for any of the examined SNPs in the LTA genomic region and LGALS2 gene, or for haplotypes spanning the LTA genomic region. In two MI populations of European descent with markedly different ascertainment strategies, we were not able to identify a significant association of SNPs in the LTA genomic region or the LGALS2 gene with MI. These variants are unlikely to play a significant role in populations of European origin.

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