4.3 Article

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ polymorphism Pro12Ala is associated with nephropathy in type 2 diabetes

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 166-171

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2006.02.006

关键词

nephropathy; type 2 diabetes; genetics; polymorphism; PPARG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: One putative determinant of diabetic nephropathy is the Pro12Ala (P12A) polymorphism in the gene encoding peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma). Previous research has found a protective' role for the A12 allele in association with type 2 diabetes, atherosclerosis, and measures of kidney damage. The objective of this study was to investigate a possible role for the P12A PPAR gamma gene polymorphism with diabetic nephropathy in an isolated aboriginal Canadian population at high risk for renal disease. Methods: The P12A PPAR gamma gene polymorphism was genotyped in 159 subjects (62 men and 97 women) of Oji-Cree descent. Participants were selected from a communitywide survey, which included diabetic nephropathy assessment by albumin/creatinine (A/C) ratio measurement. Genetic associations were tested by multivariate regression analysis, using a forward stepwise modeling approach. Results: PPAR gamma A12 allele carriers had reduced prevalence of microalbuminuria with a similar to 1.5-fold reduction in A/C ratio. Both PPARG P12A genotype [odds ratio (OR)=0.25, 95% confidence interval (95% CI)=0.076-0.85, P=.026] and systolic blood pressure (OR=1.69, 95% CI=1.15-2.48, P=.0075) were associated with microalbuminuria. Conclusions: The genetic influence of PPARG P12A genotype is modest and is overshadowed by duration of diabetes and systolic blood pressure as the major risk factors for diabetic nephropathy in the Oji-Cree population. The observed genetic association with diabetic nephropathy, however, confirms earlier findings, highlighting the importance of this polymorphism. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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