4.0 Article

GDF5 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism rs143383 Is Associated With Lumbar Disc Degeneration in Northern European Women

期刊

ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 708-712

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/art.30169

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arthritis Research UK
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Medical Research Council [U1475000001, MC_UP_A620_1014] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10082] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Lumbar disc degeneration (LDD) is a serious social and medical problem which has been shown to be highly heritable. It has similarities with peripheral joint osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of both epidemiology and pathologic processes. A few known genetic variants have been identified using a candidate gene approach, but many more are thought to exist. GDF5 is a gene whose variants have been shown to play a role in skeletal height as well as predisposing to peripheral joint OA. In vitro, the gene product growth differentiation factor 5 has been shown to promote growth and repair of animal disc. This study was undertaken to investigate whether the GDF5 gene plays a role in LDD. Methods. We investigated whether the 5' upstream single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variant rs143383 was associated with LDD, using plain radiography and magnetic resonance imaging to identify disc space narrowing and osteophytes, in 5 population cohorts from Northern Europe. Results. An association between LDD and the SNP rs143383 was identified in women, with the same risk allele as in knee and hip OA (odds ratio 1.72 [95% confidence interval 1.15-2.57], P = 0.008). Conclusion. Our findings in 5 population cohorts from Northern Europe indicate that a variant in the GDF5 gene is a risk factor for LDD in women. Many more such variants are predicted to exist, but this result highlights the growth and differentiation cellular pathway as a possible route to a better understanding of the process behind lumbar disc degeneration.

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

4.0
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