4.7 Article

Genetic analysis of the glutathione s-transferase genes MGST1, GSTM3, GSTT1, and GSTM1 in patients with hereditary pancreatitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 783-787

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-004-1389-7

关键词

hereditary pancreatitis; chronic pancreatitis; oxidative stress

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK54709] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Specific mutations in the cationic trypsinogen gene (PRSS1) are disease-causing in patients with hereditary pancreatitis, but the genetic background still remains mysterious in about 40% of patients with the disease. It has been suggested that oxidative stress contributes to pancreatic damage. The glutathione s-transferases (GSTs) represent major detoxification enzymes that protect cells from oxidative stress. Methods. In the present study we tested whether mutations in the MGST1 and GSTM3 genes or common deletions in the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes are associated with hereditary pancreatitis. We analyzed the entire coding region of MGST1 and GSTM3 in 30 patients that were tested negative for PRSS1 mutations, and we studied 55 controls. For GSTT1 and GSTM1, we investigated 75 hereditary pancreatitis patients who had been tested negative for PRSS1 mutations, 135 hereditary pancreatitis patients with a PRSS1 mutation, and 183 controls. Patients were further subclassified with regard to age of onset of disease as a marker of severity. Results. No mutation was found in the MGST1 gene. In the GSTM3 gene, we detected a homozygous 670G > A polymorphism (V224I) with similar frequencies in patients and controls. We found no difference in the frequencies of the GSTT1 and GSTM1 null genotypes between patients and controls, and we detected no differences in age of onset in patients with or without GSTT1 and GSTM1 deletions. Conclusions. We conclude that genetic alterations in the MGST1, GSTM3, GSTT1, and GSTM1 genes do not play a dominant role in hereditary pancreatitis.

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