4.7 Article

ANRIL Expression Is Associated With Atherosclerosis Risk at Chromosome 9p21

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.196832

关键词

atherosclerosis; blood cells; coronary artery disease; gene expression; peripheral arterial disease

资金

  1. Roland-Ernst-Foundation
  2. National Genome Research Network
  3. Medical Faculty, University Leipzig
  4. German Federal Ministry for Education and Research [01KN0702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-We tested the hypothesis that expression of transcripts adjacent to the chromosome 9p21 (Chr9p21) locus of coronary artery disease was affected by the genotype at this locus and associated with atherosclerosis risk. Methods and Results-We replicated the locus for coronary artery disease (P=0.007; OR=1.28) and other manifestations of atherosclerosis such as carotid plaque (P=0.003; OR=1.31) in the Leipzig Heart Study, a cohort of 1134 patients with varying degree of angiographically assessed coronary artery disease. Expression analysis in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (n=1098) revealed that transcripts EU741058 and NR_003529 of antisense noncoding RNA in the INK4 locus (ANRIL) were significantly increased in carriers of the risk haplotype (P=2.1x10(-12) and P=1.6x10(-5), respectively). In contrast, transcript DQ485454 remained unaffected, suggesting differential expression of ANRIL transcripts at Chr9p21. Results were replicated in whole blood (n=769) and atherosclerotic plaque tissue (n=41). Moreover, expression of ANRIL transcripts was directly correlated with severity of atherosclerosis (EU741058 and NR_003529; P=0.02 and P=0.001, respectively). No consistent association of Chr9p21 or atherosclerosis was found with expression of other genes such as CDKN2A, CDKN2B, C9orf53, and MTAP. Conclusion-Our data provide robust evidence for an association of ANRIL but not CDKN2A, CDKN2B, C9orf53, and MTAP, with atherosclerosis and Chr9p21 genotype in a large cohort. (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30:620-627.)

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