4.2 Article

Inheritance of arterial lesions in renal fibromuscular dysplasia

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 393-400

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1002156

关键词

genetics; fibromuscular dysplasia; renovascular; echotracking; arterial stiffness; generalized estimating equation approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown that patients with renal fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) have asymptomatic carotid lesions and that familial forms may occur. The objective of this study was to test whether carotid lesions could be detected in relatives of familial cases. High-resolution echotracking of the carotid artery was performed in 47 relatives of 13 cases from six families. This non-invasive investigation led to a semiquantitative arterial score that was compared with that obtained for 47 controls matched for age and sex and that for 125 sporadic cases. Familial resemblance was tested by using a generalized estimating equation approach taking into account the clustering of scores in families. As expected, FMD cases had a significantly higher score than controls (4.02 vs 2.52, P < 10(-5)). Familial cases were not significantly different from sporadic cases. Of interest, the 47 apparently healthy relatives of familial cases had also a high carotid score (4.17), very significantly higher than that of controls (2.52, P < 10(-5)) even though lower than the corresponding index FMD cases (4.81, P = 0.01). Segregation analysis showed that 52% of the descendants of subjects with a score 44 had a score 44, a proportion consistent with autosomal-dominant transmission of the trait. Altogether these results strengthen the hypothesis of renal FMD being a systemic arterial disease and argue for a familial resemblance that may be due to a major genetic effect. The carotid score obtained by high-resolution echo-tracking may provide a non-invasive surrogate marker for renal FMD of potential value for use in linkage strategies on large pedigrees.

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

4.2
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