4.6 Article

A variant of the LRP4 gene affects the risk of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia transformation to Richter syndrome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 284-294

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08482.x

关键词

Richter syndrome; chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; diffuse large B cell lymphoma; single nucleotide polimorphism; LRP4

资金

  1. FIRB Progetto Futuro in Ricerca
  2. Rome, MIUR, Italy
  3. AIRC, Milan, Italy [10007]
  4. Progetto Giovani Ricercatori
  5. Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata, Ministero della Salute, Rome, Italy
  6. Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata, Regione Piemonte, Italy
  7. Ricerca Scientifica Applicata, Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, Trieste
  8. Novara-AIL Onlus, Novara, Italy
  9. AIL Venezia Section, Pramaggiore Group
  10. Associazione Franca Capurro per Novara Onlus, Novara, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Richter syndrome (RS) represents the transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to aggressive lymphoma. Risk factors of CLL transformation to RS are only partly known. We explored the role of the host genetic background as a risk factor for RS occurrence. Forty-five single nucleotide polimorphisms (SNPs) known to be relevant for CLL prognosis were genotyped in a consecutive cohort of 331 CLL, of which 21 had transformed to RS. After correcting for multiple testing and adjusting for previously reported RS risk factors, the LRP4 rs2306029 TT variant genotype was the sole SNP independently associated with a higher risk of RS transformation (Hazard Ratio: 4 center dot 17; P = 0 center dot 001; q = 0 center dot 047). The enrichment of LRP4 TT genotype in RS was confirmed in an independent series (n = 44) used for validation purposes. The LRP4 protein was expressed in CLL (n = 66). Bioinformatic analysis scored LRP4 rs2306029 as a variant with possible deleterious and damaging variant of LRP4. LRP4 genotyping may help the recognition of patients with increased risk of RS at the time of CLL diagnosis.

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

4.6
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