4.7 Article

Higher frequency of abnormal serum angiopoietin-like protein 3 than abnormal cholesteryl ester transfer protein in Japanese hyperalphalipoproteinemic subjects

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 398, 期 1-2, 页码 99-104

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2008.08.021

关键词

Angiopoietin-like protein 3; Cholesteryl ester transfer protein; Hyperalphalipoproteinemia; Adiponectin; HDL-cholesterol

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Either a decrease of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) or an increase of angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) in plasma has been shown to increase HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. However, as yet, it is not known which protein is more strongly associated with the modulation of HDL in the Japanese hyperalphalipoproteinemic (HALT) subjects. Methods: The serum concentration of ANGPTL3 and CETP, together with total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), adiponectin and ApoE phenotypes were determined in three groups with different HDL-C concentrations: low, <40 mg/dl (n=51); normal, 40-90 mg/dl (n=126) and high, >90 mg/dl (n=89) in the average Japanese population. Results: The normal range (mean +/- 2SD) of serum ANGPTL3 (218 +/- 144 ng/ml) and CETP (1.29 +/- 0.90 mu g/ml) were determined in cases with 40-90 mg/dl HDL-C concentration. The frequency of abnormally high ANGPTL3 cases (>362 ng/ml) were found to be significantly greater (44%) compared with those of low CETP cases (<0.39 mu g/ml, 4.5%) in HALT cases(>90 mg/dl). ANGPTL3 showed a high correlation with HDL-C(r=0.67. P<0.0001) and adiponectin (r=0.57, P<0.0001), but not with CETP. Conclusion: In average Japanese population, abnormally higher frequency of increased ANGPTL3 prevail in HALT cases as compared with cases with low CETP. These findings suggest that ANGPTL3, the inhibitor of endothelial lipase, may be more strongly associated with increased HDL-C rather than CETP in plasma. Accordingly, ANGPTL3 seems to be a better target for the modulation of HDL-C. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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