4.7 Article

Epistasis, not numbers, regulates functions of clustered Dahl rat quantitative trait loci applicable to human hypertension

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 1300-1308

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000192024.72367.c3

关键词

gene-gene interaction; fine QTL mapping; comparative homology; congenic combinations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for blood pressure (BP) were found on chromosome 10 of Dahl salt-sensitive rats and are potentially important to human essential hypertension. But their identities and how they influence BP together were not known. Presently, we first fine mapped existing QTLs, C10QTL1, C10QTL2, and C10QTL3, by constructing congenic strains. In the process, a new QTL, C10QTL4, was identified. Because the intervals harboring C10QTL1 and C10QTL4 contain a maximum of 16 and 10 possible genes, respectively, a limited number of specific gene targets has been identified to be QTLs residing in human homologous regions on chromosome 17. Moreover, because none of these candidates encodes a gene known to influence BP, the 2 QTLs will represent novel genes for BP regulations. Second, we used congenic strains with QTL combinations to analyze the interactions between the QTLs. Consequently, a double combination of C10QTL4 and C10QTL1 possessed the same BP as each of the 2 QTLs alone. BP of a triple combination of C10QTL4, C10QTL1, and C10QTL3 was not different from BP of the C10QTL4 and C10QTL1 double combination. These results demonstrate that C10QTL4, C10QTL1, and C10QTL3 are epistatic to one another in their BP effects. In contrast, when adding C10QTL2 into the triple formation of the 3 QTLs above to create a quadruple QTL combination, BP increased proportionately, indicating that C10QTL2 acts independently of C10QTL4, C10QTL1, and C10QTL3. The epistatic and additive interactions uncovered in the animal model will help elucidate similar interactions playing a role in human essential hypertension.

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