4.1 Article

Leu7Pro polymorphism in the neuropeptide Y (NPY) gene is associated with impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes in Swedish men

期刊

出版社

JOHANN AMBROSIUS BARTH VERLAG MEDIZINVERLAGE HEIDELBERG GMBH
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-865650

关键词

neuropeptide Y; type 2 diabetes; impaired glucose tolerance; single nucleotide polymorphism; genetic association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neuropepticle Y (NPY) is a neuropepticle with a role in the regulation of satiety and energy balance of body weight, insulin release, cardiovascular and central endocrine systems. In order to evaluate whether the NPY gene variations contribute to development of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), we have performed a genetic association study for Leu7Pro (T1128C) polymorphism of the NPY gene in impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and T2DM. Geno-typing experiments for this non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in 263 patients with T2DM, 309 subjects with IGT and 469 non-diabetic healthy individuals in Swedish Caucasians were performed by using Dynamic Allele Specific Hybridisation (DASH). We found that the frequencies of the risk allele C in the subjects with IGT and the patients with T2DM in Swedish men were 13 % (p = 0.002, OR = 3.70,1.65 - 8.29 95 % CI) and 10% (p = 0.007, OR = 4.80, 1.47-11.33 95% CI) respectively, which were significantly higher than the C allele frequency in non-diabetic controls (6%). Furthermore, we found that the carriers with TC and CC genotypes in the subjects with IGT in Swedish men had significantly higher fasting plasma glucose in comparison with the TT carriers (5.6 +/- 0.7 mmol/l vs. 5.2 +/- 0.7 mmol/l, p = 0.021). The present study thus provides the evidence that Leu7Pro polymorphism in the NPY gene is associated with IGT and T2DM in Swedish men, and indicates that the NPY gene variations contribute to development of T2DM. Questions of gender specificity may be explained by genetic backgrounds, sense of coherence for stress and other factors in environment.

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

4.1
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