4.7 Article

Familial atrial fibrillation is a genetically heterogeneous disorder

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 2185-2192

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00465-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to identify and characterize familial cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) in our clinical practice and to determine whether AF is genetically heterogeneous. BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is not generally regarded as a heritable disorder, yet a genetic locus for familial AF was previously mapped to chromosome 10. METHODS Of 2,610 patients seen in our arrhythmia clinic during an 18-month study period, 914 (35%) were diagnosed with AF. Familial cases were identified by history and medical records review. Four multi-generation families with autosomal dominant AF (FAF 1 to 4) were tested for linkage to the chromosome 10 AF locus. RESULTS Fifty probands (5% of all AF patients; 15% of lone AF patients) were identified with lone AF (age 41 +/- 9 years) and a positive family history (1 to 9 additional relatives affected). In FAF 1 to 3, AF was associated with rapid ventricular response. In contrast, AF in FAF-4 was associated with a slow ventricular response and, with progression of the disease, junctional rhythm and cardiomyopathy. Genotyping of FAF 1 to 4 with deoxyribonucleic acid markers spanning the chromosome 1Oq22-q24 region excluded linkage of AF to this locus. In FAF-4, linkage was also excluded to the chromosome 3p22-p25 and lamin A/C loci associated with familial AF, conduction system disease, and dilated cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSIONS Familial AF is more common than previously recognized, highlighting the importance of genetics in disease pathogenesis. In four families with AF, we have excluded linkage to chromosome 10q22-q24, establishing that at least two disease genes are responsible for this disorder. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:2185-92) (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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