4.7 Article

Toll receptor polymorphisms and carotid artery intima-media thickness

期刊

STROKE
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 1179-1184

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000260184.85257.2b

关键词

atherosclerosis; carotid artery; genetics; inflammation; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Inflammation is a key mechanism in atherosclerosis. Variation in genes encoding inflammatory responses may therefore influence atherosclerosis risk possibly through interaction with chronic infections and proinflammatory environmental risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, and obesity. The Toll-like receptor family (TLRs) genes TLR2 and TLR4, both involved in the inflammatory process, are potential candidates and TLR-4 has been previously associated with cardiovascular disease, although other studies have failed to confirm this. Methods-A total of 3000 individuals from the prospective community-based Carotid Atherosclerosis Progression Study (CAPS) were genotyped for single nucleotide polymorphisms: TLR2 (Arg753Gln, -16934 A/T) and TLR4 (D299G, T399I). Associations were determined with common carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) at baseline and also progression of IMT over the 3-year follow-up period. Gene-environment interactions with high sensitive C-reactive protein, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes were determined. Results-There was no association between single nucleotide polymorphisms or haplotypes in either TLR4 or TLR2 and either baseline IMT or progression of IMT over the 3-year follow up. There were no interactions among the three proinflammatory risk factors. No genotype or haplotype was associated with high sensitive C-reactive protein. Conclusions-In this large community population, we found no evidence for genetic variation in these two TLRs being risk factors for increased IMT either directly or through interaction with proinflammatory risk factors. We were unable to confirm associations with the TLR4 polymorphisms reported in previous smaller studies.

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