4.5 Article

A common polymorphism of uncoupling protein 2 gene is associated with hypertension

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 97-102

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004872-200401000-00018

关键词

gene; hypertension; obesity; polymorphism; type 2 diabetes; uncoupling protein 2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The genes responsible for obesity are also candidate genes for obesity-related conditions, such as hypertension and type 2 diabetes. A functional polymorphism in the uncoupling protein 2 (UCP2) promoter has been reported to be associated with obesity in Caucasians. To clarify the contribution of this polymorphism to obesity and related conditions, we studied the association of the -866 G/A polymorphism of the UCP2 gene with obesity, hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods A total of 632 unrelated Japanese subjects were studied: 342 type 2 diabetic patients (among them, 158 patients complicated with hypertension), 156 hypertensive patients without diabetes mellitus and 134 control subjects. The -866 G/A polymorphism of UCP2 was determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Results The frequency of the minor A allele was significantly higher in Japanese than in Caucasians (48.9 versus 37.2%, P = 0.01). In contrast to the significant association with obesity in Caucasians, the polymorphism was not associated with obesity in Japanese. The polymorphism, however, was significantly associated with hypertension in Japanese (frequency of A allele: 51.8% in hypertensives versus 46.6% in normotensives, P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in body mass index (BMI), fasting insulin level or HOMA-R between patients with different genotypes. Conclusion These data indicate that the polymorphism of the UCP2 gene is associated with hypertension, and suggest the possibility of UCP2 as a target molecule for studies on the etiology and treatment of hypertension. (C) 2004 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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