4.5 Article

A Genome-Wide Association Study of Hypertension-Related Phenotypes in a Japanese Population

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 74, 期 11, 页码 2353-2359

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0353

关键词

Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2; Brain natriuretic peptide; Genetics; Hypertension; Single nucleotide polymorphism

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been successful in identifying genes that contribute to common diseases and phenotypes. A GWAS of hypertension-related phenotypes in a Japanese population was conducted in the current study. Methods and Results: A total of 936 participants were recruited from the Suita Study and a GWAS with 538,732 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) was performed. The phenotypes included were systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), plasma renin activity (PRA), plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC), plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration and alcohol consumption (AC). The SNP exceeding the genome-wide significance level were subjected to subsequent association studies using samples available from the Suita Study and Nomura Study. There is no master gene in the Japanese population that profoundly affects SBP, DBP, BMI, WHR, PRA and PAC. AC was influenced by the functional polymorphism in ALDH2, which affected BP levels in men. The BNP concentration was influenced by a polymorphism in the 3' region of the gene encoding for BNP. However, this polymorphism did not influence blood pressure (BP). Six SNP were identified to be associated with hypertension in both the Suita and Nomura studies. Conclusions: Although several candidate SNP relevant to hypertension and those influencing AC and BNP were identified, our middle-sized GWAS indicated that there is no master gene in Japanese people that profoundly affects BP-related phenotypes. (Circ J 2010; 74: 2353-2359)

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