4.2 Article

Angiotensinogen and angiotensin II type 1 receptor gene polymorphism in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: Effect on hypertension and ESRD

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 641-647

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2003.44.4.641

关键词

polycystic kidney; autosomal dominant; angiotensin; angiotensinogen; polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), a common genetic disease, is characterized by the development of hypertension and end stage renal disease. An increase in the activity of the renin-angiotensin system, due to a renal ischemia caused by cyst expansion, contributes to the development of hypertension and renal failure in ADPKD. Recently, the angiotensinogen (AGT) gene, M235T, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (ATR) gene, A1166C, polymorphisms have been associated with the susceptibility to develop hypertension and renal disease. We, hypothesized that the AGT M235T and ATR A1166C polymorphisms could account for some of the variability in the progression of ADPKD. Genotyping was performed in 108 adult patients with ADPKD, and 105 normotensive healthy controls, using PCR and restriction digestion. We analyzed the effects of the AGT M235T and ATR A1166C polymorphisms on hypertension and age at the end stage renal disease (ESRD). Of the 108 patients with ADPKD, 64 (59%) had hypertension and 24 (22%) reached the ESRD. The prevalence of hypertension were; [MM+MT], [TT] genotypes, 60%, 59% (p=1.00); [AA], [AC+CC] genotypes, 60%, 50% respectively (p=0.54). The ages at the onset of ESRD were; [MM+MT], [TT] genotypes, 50+/-9 years, 56+/-8 years (p=0.07); [AA], [AC+CC] genotypes, 54+/-8 years, 52+/-14 years, respectively (p=0.07). There were no differences in the prevalence of hypertension and the ages at the ESRD in relation to the AGT M235T and ATR A1166C polymorphisms. We suggest that the AGT and ATR gene polymorphisms would not have an effect on hypertension or the ESRD in ADPKD.

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

4.2
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