4.4 Article

Candidate-gene association study searching for genetic factors involved in migraine chronification

期刊

CEPHALALGIA
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 500-507

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414547141

关键词

Chronic migraine; high-frequency migraine; genetics; association studies

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [VICI 918.56.602, VIDI 917.11.319]
  2. European Community (EC)
  3. Centre for Medical Systems Biology (CMSB) of the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)
  4. Orion Farmos Research Foundation
  5. South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [2010075, 2011083]
  6. Miguel Servet Programme [CP12/03298]
  7. Fundacio La Marato TV3 [072310]
  8. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias: FIS [PI10/00876]
  9. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [SAF2009-13182-C01, SAF2009-13182-C03]
  10. Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR) [2009SGR0971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Chronic migraine (CM) is at the severe end of the clinical migraine spectrum, but its genetic background is unknown. Our study searched for evidence that genetic factors are involved in the chronification process. Methods We initially selected 144 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 48 candidate genes, which we tested for association in two stages: The first stage encompassed 262 CM patients, the second investigated 226 patients with high-frequency migraine (HFM). Subsequently, SNPs with p values<0.05 were forwarded to the replication stage containing 531 patients with CM or HFM. Results Eight SNPs were significantly associated with CM and HFM in the two-stage phase. None survived replication in the third stage. Discussion We present the first comprehensive genetic association study for migraine chronification. There were no significant findings. Future studies may benefit from larger, genome-wide data sets or should use other genetic approaches to identify genetic factors involved in migraine chronification.

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

4.4
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