4.5 Article

Relationship of eNOS gene variants to diseases that have in common an endothelial cell dysfunction

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2005.tb00343.x

关键词

endothelium; coronary disease; hypertension; Fabry's disease; eNOS; ACE; gene polymorphisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The endothelial cell (EC) dysfunction is a common characteristic of various pathologies that include atherosclerosis, hypertension, and Fabry's disease. Aware of the role of eNO and ACE in EC dysfunction, we questioned whether polymorphism of eNOS and/or ACE gene may be a common denominator in these pathologies. Patients with CHD (108), HT (109), Fabry's disease (37) and healthy subjects (control, 141) were genotyped for the eNOSG894T by RFLP-PCR technique and for eNOS4b/a, and ACE I/D polymorphisms by PCR amplification. The results of these studies were statistically evaluated. Compared to controls, the frequency of the eNOSG894T (T allele) was higher in CHD (P=0.03) and Fabry (P=0.01), while the eNOS4b/a (a allele) in CHD (P=0.01) and HT patients (P=0.01). The proportion of the ACE I/D was similar in all subjects. In CHD patients at low risk of atherogenic factors, the frequency of the T and a alleles of eNOS gene was high (P=0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Carriers of the T allele of eNOSG894T were over-represented (P=0.04) in Fabry subgroup with renal failure. Compared to women, the eNOS894T alleles were more frequent (P=0.03) in men with CHD and HT, whereas ACE I/D in men (P=0.03) with HT. These findings suggest: (i) the frequency of eNOSG894T and/or eNOS4b/a is significantly associated with coronary dysfunction; (ii) eNOS4b/a confers a relatively high risk of hypertension in subjects with atherogenic risk factors; (iii) the frequency of eNOSG894T is high in Fabry hemizygotes with renal complications. Therefore, eNOS gene polymorphism represent a frequent risk factor for vascular abnormalities in CHD, HT and Fabry's disease, afflictions which have in common, the endothelial dysfunction.

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

4.5
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