4.3 Review

Genetic determinants of LDL, lipoprotein(a), triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and HDL: concordance and discordance with cardiovascular disease risk

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN LIPIDOLOGY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 113-122

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOL.0b013e32834477d2

关键词

genetics; genomics; lipids; myocardial infarction; stroke

资金

  1. Danish Heart Foundation
  2. Copenhagen County Foundation
  3. Herlev Hospital
  4. Copenhagen University Hospital
  5. Research Fund at Rigshospitalet
  6. HDLomics
  7. European Union [037631]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review To evaluate whether new and known genetic determinants of plasma levels of LDL cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, and HDL cholesterol associate with the risk of cardiovascular disease expected from the effect on lipoprotein levels. Concordance or discordance of such genetic determinants with cardiovascular disease risk will either favor or disfavor that these lipoproteins are causally related to cardiovascular disease. Recent findings Evidence for concordance or discordance with cardiovascular disease risk has come from Mendelian randomization studies, whereas indirect evidence also has emerged from genome-wide and candidate gene association studies. The major limitations of studies of genetic variation and concordance or discordance with cardiovascular disease are pleiotropic effects of the variants studied, and/or lack of sufficient statistical power of the majority of studies to firmly demonstrate a positive association, or even more difficult, to exclude an association. Summary New and known genetic determinants of plasma levels of LDL cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins are concordant with both the magnitude and direction of the expected risk of cardiovascular disease, whereas this is unclear for HDL cholesterol. The data are compatible with cardiovascular disease causality for the three former lipoprotein classes, but not for HDL cholesterol.

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

4.3
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