4.8 Article

Finding genetic contributions to sporadic disease: A recessive locus at 12q24 commonly contributes to patent ductus arteriosus

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.192582999

关键词

linkage (genetics); patent ductus arteriosus; consanguinity; human chromosomes; pair 12

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [K08 HD041481] Funding Source: Medline
  2. PHS HHS [K08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The causes of many sporadic diseases are unexplained; the contribution of recessive loci with reduced penetrance is one possibility that has been difficult to explore. We describe an approach to this problem by first searching for diseases with higher prevalence in populations with high rates of consanguinity, then determining whether disease cases are more commonly the product of consanguinous union than controls in such populations, followed by analysis of genetic linkage in consanguinous cases. We demonstrate the utility of this approach by investigation of congenital heart disease in Iran. We found that patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), a common congenital heart disease, accounts for a higher fraction of congenital heart disease in Iran (15%) than in the United States (2-7%). Moreover, Iranian PDA cases demonstrated a marked increase of parental consanguinity (63%), compared with the general Iranian population (25%) or control cases with tetralogy of Fallot (30%). The recurrence of PDA among siblings was 5%. A genomewide analysis of linkage in 21 unrelated consanguinous PDA cases demonstrated a multipoint logarithm of odds score of 6.27 in favor of linkage of PDA to a 3-centimorgan interval of chromosome 12q24, with 53% of kindreds linked. These findings together establish a recessive component to PDA and implicate a single locus, PDA 1, in one third or more of all PDA cases in Iran;they further suggest a role for this locus in PDA worldwide. Finally, these results suggest a general approach to the identification of recessive contributions to sporadic diseases.

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

4.8
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