4.7 Article

Heme oxygenase-1 gene promoter polymorphism is associated with reduced incidence of acute chest syndrome among children with sickle cell disease

期刊

BLOOD
卷 120, 期 18, 页码 3822-3828

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361642

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [RO1-HL079937, 1U54HL090515]
  2. Burroughs Wellcome Foundation
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [U01-NS-042804]
  4. Center for Translational Science Award [M01-RR00052, K02HL088026]
  5. Johns Hopkins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sickle cell disease is a common hemolytic disorder with a broad range of complications, including vaso-occlusive episodes, acute chest syndrome (ACS), pain, and stroke. Heme oxygenase-1 (gene HMOX1; protein HO-1) is the inducible, rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolism of heme and might attenuate the severity of outcomes from vaso-occlusive and hemolytic crises. A(GT)(n) dinucleotide repeat located in the promoter region of the HMOX1 gene is highly polymorphic, with long repeat lengths linked to de-creased activity and inducibility. We examined this polymorphism to test the hypothesis that short alleles are associated with a decreased risk of adverse outcomes (hospitalization for pain or ACS) among a cohort of 942 children with sickle cell disease. Allele lengths varied from 13 to 45 repeats and showed a trimodal distribution. Compared with children with longer allele lengths, children with 2 shorter alleles (4%; <= 25 repeats) had lower rates of hospitalization for ACS (incidence rate ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.81), after adjusting for sex, age, asthma, percentage of fetal hemoglobin, and alpha-globin gene deletion. No relationship was identified between allele lengths and pain rate. We provide evidence that genetic variation in HMOX1 is associated with decreased rates of hospitalization for ACS, but not pain. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00072761. (Blood. 2012;120(18):3822-3828)

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