4.5 Article

Hypothetical LOC387715 is a second major susceptibility gene for age-related macular degeneration, contributing independently of complement factor H to disease risk

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 3227-3236

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddi353

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a multifactorial disease and a prevalent cause of visual impairment in developed countries. Risk factors include environmental components and genetic determinants. The complement factor H (CFH) has been the first major susceptibility gene for AMD identified within 1q32. Here, we focused on a second region of interest in 10q26 where a recent meta-analysis revealed strongest evidence for linkage to AMD at a genome-wide significance level. Within an interval of 22 Mb, we have analyzed 93 single nucleotide polymorphisms for allelic association with AMD in two independent case-control cohorts of German origin (AMD(combined) n=1166; controls(combined) n=945). Significant association was found across a 60 kb region of high linkage disequilibrium harboring two genes PLEKHA1 and hypothetical LOC387715. The strongest association (P=10(-34)) centered over a frequent coding polymorphism, Ala69Ser, at LOC387715, strongly implicating this gene in the pathogenesis of AMD. Besides abundant expression in placenta, we demonstrate weak expression of LOC387715 in the human retina. At present, however, there is no functional information on this gene, which appears to have evolved recently within the primate lineage. The joint contribution of the common risk allele at LOC387715, Ala69Ser, and at CFH, Tyr402His, was assessed in our case-control population, which suggests an additive model indicating an independent contribution of the two gene loci to disease risk. Our data show a disease odds ratio of 57.6 (95% CI: 37.2, 89.0) conferred by homozygosity for risk alleles at both CFH and LOC387715 when compared with the baseline non-risk genotype.

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

4.5
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