4.1 Article

Risk interaction of obesity, insulin resistance and hormone-sensitive lipase promoter polymorphisms (LIPE-60 C > G) in the development of fatty liver

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-14-54

关键词

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); Hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL); Insulin resistance; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Chi-Mei Medical Center
  2. Kaohsiung Medical University [CMFHR9647]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) promoter (LIPE-60 C > G) polymorphism has been found to be involved in hepatic steatosis, obesity, diabetes and dyslipidemia. The precise interactions between these risk factors and genetic susceptibility that may affect non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are still not fully determined. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 1056 men. To avoid the confounding effect of plasma glucose, the study population was classified into normal glucose tolerance (NGT, n = 729) and glucose intolerance (GI, n = 299) groups. NAFLD was diagnosed by abdominal ultrasound after ruling out any history of alcohol abuse. A multivariate regression model was used to estimate the impact of these factors on NAFLD. Results: In the NGT group, subjects with NAFLD often have complicated metabolic abnormalities. The coexistence of NAFLD and GI has been demonstrated to have a synergistic effect raising BMI, serum insulin and HOMA-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). BMI and adipose-insulin resistance (Adipo-IR), but not HOMA-IR, significantly contributed to a greater risk of developing NAFLD. Serum triglyceride was significantly up-regulated in men with the (CG + GG) genotype of HSL promoter polymorphism, NAFLD and Adiopo-IR in sequence. Conclusion: Adipo-IR, rather than HOMA-IR, appears to be a consistent insulin resistance index in the study of NAFLD. G allele of the HSL promoter polymorphism may contribute the greatest impact raising serum triglyceride in a state of glucose intolerance.

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

4.1
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