4.7 Article

The genetics of systemic lupus erythematosus and implications for targeted therapy

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 I37-I43

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2010.138057

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observations of familial aggregation (lambda s=8-29) and a 40% identical twin concordance rate prompted recent work towards a comprehensive genetic analysis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Since 2007, the number of genetic effects known to be associated with human lupus has increased by fivefold, underscoring the complexity of inheritance that probably contributes to this disease. Approximately 35 genes associated with lupus have either been replicated in multiple samples or are near the threshold for genome-wide significance (p>5x10(-8)). Some are rare variants that convincingly contribute to lupus only in specific subgroups. Strong associations have been found with a large haplotype block in the human leucocyte antigen region, with Fc gamma receptors, and with genes coding for complement components, in which a single gene deletion may cause SLE in rare familial cases and copy number variation is more common in the larger population of SLE patients. Examples of newly discovered genes include ITGAM, STAT4 and MECP2/IRAK1. Ongoing studies to build models in which combinations of associated genes might contribute to specific disease manifestations should contribute to improved understanding of disease pathology. In addition, pharmacogenomic components of ongoing clinical trials are likely to provide insights into fundamental disease pathology as well as contributing to informed patient selection for targeted treatments and biomarkers to guide dosing and gauge responsiveness. Besides these potentially valuable new insights into the pathophysiology of an enigmatic, potentially deadly, and, as yet, unsolved disease, genetic studies are likely to suggest novel molecular targets for strategic development of safer and more effective therapeutics.

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