4.7 Article

Temporal changes in the frequencies of HLA genotypes in patients with Type 1 diabetes -: indication of an increased environmental pressure?

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 420-425

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-003-1045-4

关键词

Type 1 diabetes mellitus; genetic susceptibility; HLA DR; HLA DQ; IDDM2; IDDM12; CTLA4; temporal variation; environmental factors; complex disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis. The incidence of Type 1 diabetes has increased 2.5 times during the time period from 1966 to 2000 in Finland - a general trend seen in almost all developed countries that can only be explained by environmental factors. The aim of this study was to test the possible effect of a changing environment on distribution of genotypes associated with disease susceptibility. Methods. HLA DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 genes and two diabetes-associated polymorphisms at IDDM2 and IDDM12 were analyzed. The frequencies of genotypes were compared between cases diagnosed with childhood-onset Type I diabetes during the period of 1939-1965 (n=367) and those diagnosed between 1990 and 2001 (n=736). Chi-square statistics or the Fisher's Exact test were used for the comparison of frequencies of analyzed haplotypes and genotypes in the two groups. Results. The frequencies of (DR3)-DQA1*05DQB1*02 and (DR4)-DQB1*0302 risk haplotypes and the high risk (DR3)-DQA1*05-DQB1*021 DRB1*0401-DQB1*0302 genotype were higher while proportion of patients carrying protective haplotypes (DR15)-DQB1*0602 and (DR1301)-DQB1*0603 - or protective genotypes was lower in patients diagnosed before 1965 as compared to those who developed disease after 1990. No temporal variation was found in the frequencies of genotypes at IDDM2 land IDDM12. Conclusion/interpretation. Our data suggest that the need for genetic susceptibility to develop Type I diabetes has decreased over time due to an increasing environmental pressure and this results in a higher disease progression rate especially in subjects with protective HLA genotypes.

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