4.4 Article

Cross-species replication of a serum osteocalcin quantitative trait locus on human chromosome 16q in pedigreed baboons

期刊

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
卷 77, 期 4, 页码 205-211

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-005-0056-1

关键词

skeletal genetics; bone formation; osteoporosis risk factors; nonhuman primate model; bone Gla protein

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P51 RR013986, R01 RR008781, P51 RR013986-085941, P51 RR013986-076705] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL28972, R01 HL54141] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAMS NIH HHS [F32 AR049694-01A1, F32 AR049694, F32 AR049694-02] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH59490] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteocalcin (OC), a serum marker of bone formation, in its intact form reflects osteoblast activity. It is of interest to clinicians and bone biologists due to easy measurability and potential utility as an identifier of those at risk for fracture and other complications associated with bone metabolism disorders. The only published linkage study in humans shows significant evidence for a quantitative trait locus (QTL) affecting OC levels on 16q. We used the baboon, a primate model for skeletal maintenance and turnover, to detect and quantify the effects of genes on serum OC levels and to localize chromosomal regions harboring the responsible loci. We assayed OC levels in 591 pedigreed animals, assessed OC heritability, and conducted a genomewide linkage scan for evidence of QTLs affecting this phenotype. Heritability in these baboons is 0.24. Suggestive linkage is evident with markers in a region homologous to human chromosome 16q. This first genomewide linkage scan in a nonhuman primate for QTLs affecting bone formation as reflected by OC levels provides cross-species replication of the QTL on chromosome 16q previously localized in humans. Given the concordance of results of the only two genome scans for this trait in two primate species, further studies of this region are warranted.

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

4.4
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