4.7 Article

Identification of Two Common Variants Contributing to Serum Apolipoprotein B Levels in Mexicans

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.196402

关键词

association; lipids; apolipoproteins; cardiovascular disease; Mexican population

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL-095056, HL-082762, HL-28481]
  2. NHGRI [T32 HG02536]
  3. American Heart Association [072523Y]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Although the Mexican population has a high predisposition to dyslipidemias and premature coronary artery disease, this population is underinvestigated for the genetic factors conferring the high susceptibility. This study attempted to determine these genetic factors. Methods and Results-First, we investigated apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels in Mexican extended families with familial combined hyperlipidemia using a two-step testing strategy. In the screening step, we screened 5721 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for linkage signals with apoB. In the test step, we analyzed the 130 SNPs residing in regions of suggestive linkage signals for association with apoB. We identified significant associations with two SNPs (ie, rs1424032 [P=6.07x10(-6)] and rs1349411 [P=2.72x10(-4)]) that surpassed the significance level for the number of tests performed in the test step (P < 3.84x10(-4)). Second, these SNPs were tested for replication in Mexican hyperlipidemic case-control samples. The same risk alleles as in the families with familial combined hyperlipidemia were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with apoB in the case-control samples. The rs1349411 resides near the apoB messenger RNA editing enzyme (APOBEC1) involved in the processing of APOB messenger RNA in the small intestine. The rs1424032 resides in a highly conserved noncoding region predicted to function as a regulatory element. Conclusion-We identified two novel variants, rs1349411 and rs1424032, for serum apoB levels in Mexicans. (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30:353-359.)

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