4.7 Article

Genetic variation associated with plasma von Willebrand factor levels and the risk of incident venous thrombosis

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 22, 页码 6007-6011

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-315473

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) [HL43201, HL60739, HL68986, HL73410, HL74745, HL85251, HL95080]
  2. Leducq Foundation (Paris, France)
  3. Netherlands Heart Foundation [NHS 98.113]
  4. Dutch Cancer Foundation [RUL 99/1992]
  5. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [912-03-033/2003]
  6. National Center for Research Resources [M01-RR00425]
  7. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK063491]
  8. Leducq Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a recent genome-wide association study, variants in 8 genes were associated with VWF level, a risk factor for venous thrombosis (VT). In an independent, population-based, case-control study of incident VT, we tested hypotheses that variants in these genes would be associated with risk. Cases were 656 women who experienced an incident VT, and controls comprised 710 women without a history of VT. DNA was obtained from whole blood. Logistic regression was used to test associations between incident VT and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 7 genes not previously shown to be associated with VT. Associations with P<.05 were candidates for replication in an independent case-control study of VT in both sexes. Two of the 7 SNPs tested yielded P<.05: rs1039084 (P=.005) in STXBP5, a novel candidate gene for VT, and rs1063856 (P=.04) in VWF, a gene whose protein level is associated with VT risk. Association results for the remaining 5 variants in SCARA5, STAB2, STX2, TC2N, and CLEC4M were not significant. Both STXBP5 and VWF findings were replicated successfully. Variation in genes associated with VWF levels in the genome-wide association study was found to be independently associated with incident VT. (Blood. 2011; 117(22): 6007-6011)

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