4.6 Article

A polymorphism in the IGF-I gene influences the age-related decline in circulating total IGF-I levels

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 148, 期 2, 页码 171-175

出版社

BIO SCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1480171

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Recent studies have demonstrated an association between a 192 bp polymorphism of the IGF-I gene and total IGF-I serum levels, birth weight, body height and the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular diseases later on in life. This IGF-I gene polymorphism in the promoter region of the IGF-I gene may directly influence the expression of IGF-I. In the present study we evaluated the role of this polymorphism in the age-related decline in serum IGF-I levels. Subjects and methods: All subjects were participants of the Rotterdam Study, a population-based cohort study of diseases in the elderly. We studied a total group of 346 subjects, who comprised two subgroups: a randomly selected population-based sample of 196 subjects, and a group of 150 subjects selected on IGF-I genotype. In the total group of 346 individuals the relationship between this 192 bp polymorphism and the age-related decline in circulating total IGF-I levels was studied. Results: Homozygous carriers of the 192 bp allele demonstrated significant decline in serum IGF-I with age (r = -0.29, P = 0.002). This decline is similar to that seen in the general population. An age-related decline in serum total IGF-I was not observed in heterozygotes (r = -0.06, P = 0.48) and non-carriers (r = -0.12, P = 0.32). Interestingly, the relationship between age and serum IGF-binding protein-3 levels showed the same pattern. Conclusion: We observed only in homozygous carriers of the 192 bp alleles of the IGF-I gene an age-related decline in circulating total IGF-I levels, but not in heterozygotes and non-carriers of the 192 bp allele. We hypothesize that this IGF-I gene polymorphism directly or indirectly influences GH-mediated regulation of IGF-I secretion.

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

4.6
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