4.7 Article

R3531C mutation in the apolipoprotein B gene is not sufficient to cause hypercholesterolemia

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.20.10.e76

关键词

hypercholesterolemia; apolipoprotein B; familial ligand-defective apolipoprotein B; low-density lipoprotein; familial hypercholesterolemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Familial hypercholesterolemia and familial ligand-defective apolipoprotein B-100 (FDB) are dominantly inherited disorders leading to impaired low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) and apolipoprotein B-100 (APOB) interaction, plasma LDL elevation, and hypercholesterolemia. We previously identified the first French FDB-R3531C proband, a woman with very high total cholesterol, in a group of type IIa hypercholesterolemic families. We report here the investigation of her family at large that revealed the total absence of cosegregation with hypercholesterolemia. Six of the 10 subjects heterozygous for the R3531C mutation had plasma cholesterol lower than the 97.5th percentile for their age and gender, and mean cholesterol levels were not significantly different between affected and unaffected persons, Furthermore, 2 family members with similar high LDL-cholesterol levels were not carriers of the R3531C substitution, suggesting the implication of another mutation, Segregation analysis of the LDLR gene revealed statistically significant genetic linkage with hypercholesterolemia, and analysis of the proband LDLR gene led to the identification of the 664 proline to leucine defective mutation and its detection in all 6 hypercholesterolemic-related members of this family. Therefore, our results show that the family presents with familial hypercholesterolemia and give evidence that the R3531C substitution in the APOB gene is not an allelic variant leading to FDB, Furthermore, thorough analysis of our data suggests that the APOB-R3531C mutation enhances the hypercholesterolemic effect of the LDLR-P664L defect, suggesting that it is a susceptibility mutation.

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