4.8 Article

NOS1AP Is a Genetic Modifier of the Long-QT Syndrome

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 120, 期 17, 页码 1657-1663

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.879643

关键词

arrhythmia; genetics; KCNQ1 protein, human; long-QT syndrome; nitric oxide synthase

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL068880, NS27941, MH48858]
  2. Telethon-Italy [GGP07016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background -In congenital long-QT syndrome (LQTS), a genetically heterogeneous disorder that predisposes to sudden cardiac death, genetic factors other than the primary mutation may modify the probability of life-threatening events. Recent evidence indicates that common variants in NOS1AP are associated with the QT-interval duration in the general population. Methods and Results-We tested the hypothesis that common variants in NOS1AP modify the risk of clinical manifestations and the degree of QT-interval prolongation in a South African LQTS population (500 subjects, 205 mutation carriers) segregating a founder mutation in KCNQ1 (A341V) using a family-based association analysis. NOS1AP variants were significantly associated with the occurrence of symptoms (rs4657139, P = 0.019; rs16847548, P = 0.003), with clinical severity, as manifested by a greater probability for cardiac arrest and sudden death (rs4657139, P = 0.028; rs16847548, P = 0.014), and with greater likelihood of having a QT interval in the top 40% of values among all mutation carriers (rs4657139, P = 0.03; rs16847548, P = 0.03). Conclusions-These findings indicate that NOS1AP, a gene first identified as affecting the QTc interval in a general population, also influences sudden death risk in subjects with LQTS. The association of NOS1AP genetic variants with risk for life-threatening arrhythmias suggests that this gene is a genetic modifier of LQTS, and this knowledge may be clinically useful for risk stratification for patients with this disease, after validation in other LQTS populations. (Circulation. 2009;120:1657-1663.)

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

4.8
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