4.7 Review

Candidate genes for type 1 diabetes modulate pancreatic islet inflammation and β-cell apoptosis

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 71-81

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12162

关键词

apoptosis; candidate genes; cytokines; inflammation; pancreatic -cells; type 1 diabetes

资金

  1. European Union
  2. Juvenile Diabetes Research International
  3. Actions de Recherche Concertee de la Communaute Francaise (ARC)
  4. Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), Belgium
  5. Education Department of the Basque Country

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 50 loci associated with genetic risk of type 1 diabetes (T1D). Several T1D candidate genes have been suggested or identified within these regions, but the molecular mechanisms by which they contribute to insulitis and beta-cell destruction remain to be clarified. More than 60% of the T1D candidate genes are expressed in human pancreatic islets, suggesting that they contribute to T1D by regulating at least in part pathogenic mechanisms at the beta-cell level. Recent studies by our group indicate that important genetically regulated pathways in beta-cells include innate immunity and antiviral activity, involving RIG-like receptors (particularly MDA5) and regulators of type I IFNs (i.e. PTPN2 and USP18), and genes related to beta-cell phenotype and susceptibility to pro-apoptotic stimuli (i.e. GLIS3). These observations reinforce the concept that the early pathogenesis of T1D is characterized by a dialogue between the immune system and pancreatic beta-cells. This dialogue is probably influenced by polymorphisms in genes expressed at the beta-cell and/or immune system level, leading to inadequate responses to environmental cues such as viral infections. Further studies are needed to clarify how these disease-associated variants affect pancreatic beta-cell responses to inflammation and the subsequent triggering of autoimmune responses and progressive beta-cell loss.

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