4.5 Article

Linkage to the FOXC2 region of chromosome 16 for varicose veins in otherwise healthy, unselected sibling pairs

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 235-239

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2004.024075

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The FOXC2 gene on 16q24 is mutated in lymphoedema distichiasis (LD), in which varicose veins (VV) are a common feature. We hypothesised that this gene might be implicated in the development of VV in the normal population, therefore, after performing a classical twin study, we tested for linkage and association in white women. We also tested for linkage with haemorrhoids (H), as a separate venous anomaly at the same locus. Methods: A total of 2060 complete female twin pairs aged 18-80 years from the St Thomas' Adult UK Twin registry replied to questions on VV and H as part of a broader postal survey of 6600 twins (62% response rate). Dizygotic female twin pairs were tested for linkage and association to the candidate marker D16S520 (1903 individuals genotyped), which is located about 80 kb from FOXC2. Results: Casewise concordance rates were significantly higher for monozygotic than dizygotic twins for both phenotypes (VV 67% v 45%; p=2.2x10(-6); H 68% v 59%; p=0.01; H including during pregnancy 73% v 64%; p=2.1x10(-4)), corresponding to additive genetic heritabilities in liability of 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 73% to 99%) for VV and 56-61% for H (95% CI 43% to 73%). The presence of VV and H were significantly correlated. We found significant evidence of linkage to the marker for VV (MLSASP=1.37, p=0.01; GLM(ASP/DSP) Z=3.17 p=0.002), but no association. Both linkage and association tests were negative for H. The combined phenotype of having VV and H did not show any evidence of linkage or association. Conclusion: These results demonstrate VV and H to be heritable, related conditions, and the data strongly suggest FOXC2 to be implicated in the development of VV in the general population.

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