4.7 Article

GSTM1-null polymorphism as possible risk marker for hypertension: Results from the aging and longevity study in the Sirente Geographic Area (ilSIRENTE study)

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 399, 期 1-2, 页码 92-96

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2008.09.017

关键词

GSTT1; GSTM1; Hypertension; Elderly people

资金

  1. Invecchiamento e Longevita nel Sirente (ilSIRENTE)
  2. Comunita Montana Sirentina (Secinaro, L'Aquila, Italy)
  3. Italian Red Cross of Abruzzo Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Involvement of various gene mutations in hypertension have been already reported, including GST (detoxification Phase 11 enzymes), with contrasting results. This study analyzes a possible association between GSTM1-null and GSTT1-null polymorphisms and the hypertension status in a very old population (>80 years). Methods: 354 old patients were collected (255 were hypertensive and 99 were not). Results: GSTM1-null individuals (n=156) were significantly associated with increased risk of hypertension [OR=2.25 (1.36-3.72); p=0.005]. This association was confirmed both in 115 male and 239 female subjects. In contrast, no significant association was observed [p=0.52, OR= 1.24 (0.67-2.29)] in the 57 hypertensive GSTT1-null genotypes vs 198 wild-type individuals. The above mentioned significances were obtained by multivariate logistic regression analysis after adjusting for confounder variables. Alcohol consumption and/or smoke habits were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as gender, marital status, education, number of concomitant diseases, and presence of cardiovascular diseases. No synergistic association was observed for the combined null genotypes of GSTT1 and GSTM1. Conclusions: The knowledge of GSTM1 variant status seems to be potentially useful to predict a possible hypertensive status after 80 years of age. This study underlines a possible importance of the GSTM1 enzyme for blood pressure regulation. (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